Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

West Indies Guard Ship

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution the Royal Navy's West Indies guard ship has made to the joint UK/US/Dutch anti-drug patrol. [22306]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The Royal Navy West Indies guard ship makes a formidable contribution to the international efforts to combat drug trafficking in the Caribbean.

Mr. Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that just over 51 years ago Dover was in the front line of the fight against an evil dictator? Now we find ourselves in the front line against evil drugs barons. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Royal Navy will do everything possible to protect children in our schools because many local parents are worried about access to drugs in ever increasing quantities? Will he assure the House that the Royal Navy will make war on the drug barons if necessary and take every necessary action to stop the evil trade?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend because he is plainly quite right to highlight the anxiety of his constituents—and indeed all our constituents—about drugs in the United Kingdom. It is perfectly true that, with its West Indies guard ship, the Royal Navy has played an extraordinarily prominent role in fighting the evil of the drugs trade. Since December, the current West Indies guard ship, HMS Brave, has made three major drugs seizures of a combined street value of more than £125 million. In addition, my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that a helicopter has identified a number of drug plantations ashore for destruction by the civil authorities. I hope that he and his constituents will be pleased with that answer. He has my assurance that the Royal Navy will do whatever it can to play its part in the war against that wicked trade.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I recognise the relevance of the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), would he not be far wiser to support Opposition Members who have repeatedly argued

for the retention of customs officers, instead of backing Government cuts in the Customs and Excise service, which have a direct bearing on Dover?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) informs me that there have been no cuts in the number of customs officers in Dover, so I think that the hon. Gentleman is wide of the mark. I repeat that all those organisations have an important role to play in the terrible trade. All I can account for at the Dispatch Box is the actions of the Royal Navy, which will continue to play a very prominent, extremely successful and important role.

Peacekeeping (RAF)

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the RAF is playing in peacekeeping operations around the world. [22307]

Mr. Soames: I should like to pay tribute to the exceptional role that the Royal Air Force has played and is playing in peacekeeping operations around the world. Important examples include the vital support provided to the implementation force in Bosnia and to the enforcement of no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688.

Mr. Spring: Will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the RAF for its role in transportation and supply in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia, Angola and Rwanda? Will he also join me in paying tribute to the vast range of unsung activities undertaken by the RAF, which certainly illustrate that it is the finest air force in the world?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and pleased once again to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the RAF's work, which, as he says, so often goes unnoticed. As a matter of fact, between 3 July 1992, for example, and 9 January this year, the RAF flew 1,977 sorties, delivering 27,000 tonnes of aid to the beleaguered city of Sarajevo—the longest lasting humanitarian airlift in history.
At the same time, Harriers are flying close support missions in the NATO-led implementation force in Bosnia, and Chinooks are providing lift based at Split. In Iraq, Tornados are doing an important job in the no-fly zone. The whole House will wish to pay tribute to the extremely important efforts of what is—as my hon. Friend rightly said—the finest air force in the world.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that Opposition Members are also appreciative of the peacekeeping work undertaken by the RAF? Does he recall that in December last year his noble Friend Earl Howe, the Under-Secretary of State, promised some of my hon. Friends and me that he would review the burden of low flying in the south-west of Scotland and the rest of the borders tactical training area? Did not that burden increase in the past year, whereas low flying decreased in other parts of the United Kingdom? Will he carry forward the examination of the study and tell us when some of the pressure of low flying in south-west Scotland will be relieved?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman never fails to take the opportunity—even on the most inappropriate


occasion—to raise the subject of low flying. Low flying has a limited operational capability in peacekeeping, but I hear what he says and will report it to my noble Friend.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on plans for the phased withdrawal of British troops from IFOR; and if Her Majesty's Government plan to keep any British forces in former Yugoslavia after 31 December. [22310]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Under the terms of the Dayton peace agreement, and UN Security Council resolution 1031, IFOR's mandate expires at the end of the year. The British contingent to IFOR will withdraw along with other IFOR forces. Planning the withdrawal is a matter for NATO; the United Kingdom is participating fully in this process.

Mr. Gapes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for clarifying that. Can he assure us that, this time next year, British forces in former Yugoslavia will not be trying to hold the ring in a possible three-way conflict in a resumed civil war while the United States has cut and run, and pulled out to arm one side in that conflict?

Mr. Portillo: I have said repeatedly that NATO has deployed together, is working together and will withdraw together. The hon. Gentleman has advocated the withdrawal of British troops for a long time. I well understand his reasons, but I believe that the performance of British forces in Bosnia under the UN and NATO has done a great deal to save lives and has brought enormous credit to our forces.

Mr. Colvin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when the time comes for our troops to come back from former Yugoslavia, they can do so without having to wait to thumb a lift from our United States allies? Does he recall that that was necessary when the troops were deployed to Yugoslavia? Can he confirm or deny two recent reports in the press—first, that the French have withdrawn from the future large aircraft project, and secondly, that the MOD is procuring ro-ro liners to supplement the Royal Fleet Auxiliary?

Mr. Portillo: On the last point, during the formation of the joint rapid deployment force—to which I would have referred had I been asked Question 4—we have seen the need to acquire roll-on, roll-off craft to transport heavy equipment. The future large aircraft is not at present being funded by the French Government, and we are seeking clarification of their position. As far as transporting our soldiers back from Bosnia is concerned, I do not approach this on a nationalistic basis. It is a NATO operation, and we should use those elements of transport that provide the best value for money and the best security for our returning soldiers.

Mr. Spellar: Does the Secretary of State think that after their tremendous work in IFOR, our troops will be impressed to find on their return that their homes are being sold from under them and that their rents are being

jacked up by 10 to 25 per cent. to pay for the exercise? Will he finally now recognise that the sale of the married quarters estate is dictated by dogma—

Madam Speaker: Order. The issue of the married quarters estate is far away from the issue of IFOR. Members must relate supplementary questions to the substantive question. It is very important that the hon. Gentleman follows the substantive question on the Order Paper. If he can do that, it is fine. If he cannot, I shall move on.

Mr. Spellar: Will the Secretary of State, even at this stage, stop the ill-thought-out sell-out of service houses before the troops return from Bosnia—

Madam Speaker: Order. That question has no relationship to IFOR.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is universal admiration for the way in which our forces are working in Bosnia and for the co-operation of all the NATO forces? Will he assure the House that the success of their operation will not be jeopardised by too rigid an adherence to timetables?

Mr. Portillo: I recognise, as my hon. Friend says, that there is universal acclaim for the work that the forces are doing. That acclaim is not confined to one side of the House. Quite properly, the whole nation is joined in admiration for their work.
It is important that the former warring factions should recognise that NATO has set itself a deadline, that the NATO operation can be completed in that period and that civilian reconstruction and the putting in place of the institutions of a normally functioning state can all be done in that time. It must be recognised that at some point, we shall rely on the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina to construct a lasting peace; they cannot rely for ever on the outside world to impose it. Although I recognise the point underlying my hon. Friend's question, I underline that message to the former waning factions.

Jobs

Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are provided in the United Kingdom by the defence industry. [22312]

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): The most recent figures available are for 1993–94, when an estimated 395,000 UK jobs depended on defence expenditure. About 80 per cent. of these—315,000—were sustained by my Department's spending, on both equipment and non-equipment items; the other 20 per cent.—80,000—depended on defence exports.

Mr. Batiste: Has my hon. Friend had a communication from Bill Morris, the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor and which—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—and which at its conference called for an £18 billion cut in Government defence spending? Can my hon. Friend confirm that if such a cut


were made, not only would there be no defence procurement budget, but there would be no armed forces at all?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, indeed, had such a letter, which has caused us some surprise. The proposal would reduce the level of our defence forces to some sort of volunteer militia. It would mean that we were spending £122 per head on our armed forces, which is less than half the amount spent in Luxembourg. We were surprised to receive the letter. The fact that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is sponsored by the trade union that put the proposal forward—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Perhaps the union has abandoned his sponsorship. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union suggests that the proposal is firm Labour party policy.

Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister safeguard jobs and create more in the defence industry by going forward with the future large aircraft project? What is the status of the project now that the French have indicated that they may not go forward? Will he receive my deputation in his office later this month to discuss the project? Does he know that my constituents wish to make the wings of the future large airbus and that they have a very good track record in making the wings of the airbus itself?

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the future large aircraft. The fact that France has withdrawn funding for its development phase throws the project into some jeopardy. As always, I should be delighted to receive a deputation from the hon. Gentleman—I have received more deputations from him than from any other hon. Member.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of Saudi Arabian exports to our defence industry? Does he think it helpful to British trade abroad and major contracts, such as those with which British Aerospace and others that employ many thousands of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, are involved, when programmes such as "Panorama" are made, which merely make life difficult for people who are trying to do business in the interests of the British economy and British jobs?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend is right. Saudi Arabia has been and remains a very close friend of this country and we should bear that in mind in all that we do. We should recognise the importance of the defence industry for jobs, industry and the strength of our exports.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister acknowledge the paramount importance to Scotland of Rosyth in terms of defence and defence-related employment? Given the coverage in the Scottish media today about the likely decision to use Devonport for Trident refitting, will he comment on the great concern that is being expressed in Scotland, not least the view of local trade unions that the decision that the MOD appears to have taken will cost the taxpayer £100 million more? Is that the case and does he recognise that the feeling that there has been a sell-out in Scotland is running high?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall be announcing, in answer to a written question later this afternoon, that we have decided

to place the nuclear refitting at Devonport, but that decision was announced initially in 1993. The comparison between the comparator prices that were put forward in 1993 and today is not a real one because different levels of risk and other matters were included in the prices. I confirm that Rosyth will benefit from the allocation of a large proportion of work share in refitting ships, including aircraft carriers. That will be valuable for Rosyth in particular and for Scotland in general.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware how important our defence industries are to employment, investment and manufacturing capacity, not least at Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency? In awarding the contract for 81 mm mortars shortly, will he bear it in mind that some competing countries do not open their tendering systems to Royal Ordnance? Is he aware of the success in gaining orders in overseas markets against tough competition which has reduced the costs of production to the MOD? For those and many other reasons, will my hon. Friend undertake to think British and buy British?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Perhaps I was unfair to my hon. Friend in saying that I had had more deputations from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) than from any other hon. Member because she has been assiduous in backing her constituents on this matter as on others. I cannot say that we will always buy British. We will buy what gives us best value for money. About 90 per cent. of our money is spent on buying British weapons—not because we go out of our way to buy British, but because British industry produces the best weapons. That is partly because of the strength of British industry and partly because the MOD has insisted on value for money and competition. That has done much to strengthen British industry and make it the success that it is.

Dr. David Clark: The Minister's reckless attacks on the Labour party's defence policies show how bankrupt of ideas the Government have become. He knows full well that the Transport and General Workers Union policy is not the policy of the Labour party. At our party conference, we specifically rejected such a move or such cuts.
I have a specific question about the defence workers in the royal dockyards. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that no moneys from the dock workers' pension funds will be used in the privatisation of the royal dockyards?

Mr. Arbuthnot: So it is not the policy of the Labour party. When was it then, that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield signed an advertisement calling for the banning of nuclear weapons from British territory? When was it that, six years in a row, the Labour party passed a resolution demanding that this country reduce spending to the European average? I find it incredible that the hon. Gentleman, who himself calls for a defence diversification agency, thinks that we misrepresent the Labour party's policy. The idea of a defence diversification agency suggests that the Labour party feels that it is better able to tell industry what to do than industry itself. Labour Members, instead of being failed university lecturers,


would become failed people trying to stick their fingers into industry. It would not work and it will not work, and they will be rejected.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have so many jobs in the defence industry is that the United Kingdom armed forces are not only extensively involved in peacekeeping operations but are training constantly for high-intensity situations, such as proper wars? [Laughter.] There is a big difference, and those who have been involved in proper wars know that difference. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such training includes low flying, which is an essential part of high-intensity operations, and that many of the jobs at Prestwick depend on such operations?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is correct; with his experience of flying, that is the least that I would expect of him. It is true that our armed forces provide much support to the industry of this country. One thing that we comment on too little in the House is the quality and support provided by the Red Arrows. What they have done in support of British policy and the British image abroad is nothing short of fantastic. We should praise them more often, and I do so now.

Land Mines

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has conducted into the failure rates of self-destruct land mines. [22314]

Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department carried out a study of the reliability of timers associated with self-destruct mechanisms for mines in November 1995.

Mr. Cunningham: Is the Minister aware that from Vietnam to Bosnia many innocent people have been maimed or killed by such mines? When will he agree with the Labour party and introduce a ban on their export? Is he further aware that in Coventry on Saturday many Church leaders of all denominations were collecting signatures for a petition to the Minister to introduce such a ban?

Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is right about the hazard that anti-personnel mines pose to civilians, and that is a matter that greatly concerns the Government. That is why we are playing a leading role in the United Nations weapons convention to ensure that anti-personnel mines will in future incorporate devices to ensure that they self-destruct and are detectable. We believe that that proposal is likely to come into effect and be enforceable. We do not want to make pious requests that we know will not be acted upon; we want to achieve a genuine increase in safety for civilians, and that is what we are fighting for.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom has an honourable record in its dealings with anti-personnel mines, and I am sure that he will speak about that. It is unfortunate that some Opposition Members use the issue as a stick with which to beat the Government. However, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, if it were possible, a complete ban on the manufacture of anti-personnel mines would be welcome?

Will he work through the United Nations and try to foster such a ban, because many Members on both sides of the House would welcome one?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend correctly used the phrase "if it were possible". We know that several countries would simply not agree to a complete ban on anti-personnel mines. We want to avoid a situation in which some countries agree to banning anti-personnel mines and some countries do not so that many anti-personnel mines are still lying around and posing a danger to civilians. We recognise that there are severe dangers to civilians, which is why we are going for a ban on mines that do not self-destruct and that cannot be detected. We think that such a ban is very important, and that is what we are aiming for.

Dr. David Clark: Does not the Minister follow the logic of his case that some countries will not accept only self-destruct mines? Further, does he not appreciate that there is much dispute about the failure rate of self-destruct anti-personnel mines? Will he join the Labour party—[Interruption.]—in supporting a call for a ban on the import, export and transfer of all anti-personnel mines, self-destruct or otherwise, and their component parts?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall not join the Labour party, Madam Speaker. We believe that a failure rate that is better than one in 1,000 is achievable. We have recently acquired some mines that have been investigated by the United States army, which has suggested that the risk of those mines posing any danger after 200 days is less than one in a million. So the chances of those mines becoming a danger to civilians have been very much reduced.
I do not agree with the Labour party's policy. It is important to produce an arrangement on which all countries can agree. We are working towards that end, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do so as well.

Procurement Budget

Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence procurement budget is spent on equipment designed to military specification; and what scope there is to reduce this percentage. [22315]

Mr. Arbuthnot: To deliver the battle-winning equipment our forces need in demanding environments we have to prescribe certain military standards and specifications in our contracts. We aim to make maximum use of civil standards.

Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that many commercial specifications are now more reliable and are available at less cost than are military specifications? Is he further aware that the US Secretary of Defence recently issued a directive instructing US forces to use commercial specifications whenever possible? When will we follow in those footsteps?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The US has about 31,000 military specifications, and it is working to reduce that number. However, we have made significant strides in that direction ourselves, and we have fewer than 2,000 military specifications. We are working to reduce


the number of our military specifications, and we are doing so at a higher rate than the United States. My hon. Friend is right that we want to rely heavily on civil and commercial standards whenever possible.

Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that much of the defence procurement budget is spent in my constituency on repairing vital military equipment? So when he makes his statement today about the award of the Trident contract, will he also make a statement about the privatisation of Devonport dockyard and end the deeply damaging delay?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes.

Defence Spending

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on existing military capability of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [22316]

Mr. Arbuthnot: Reducing defence spending to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year, which is about half of our entire procurement budget. That would clearly have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces.

Mr. Butler: This is clearly a very serious situation. Is the Minister telling the House that if such cuts were to be made—which, in the absence of any subsequent declaration from it, I understand to be Labour party policy—we would not be able to carry out either our international commitments or the defence of the realm?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Well, yes, but it is worse than that because of the letter that we have received from the Transport and General Workers Union—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—about which the Labour party seems to be rather uncomfortable. That letter echoes Labour party policy that has been passed at party conference, after party conference, after party conference. It means that we must consider the precise effect of cutting £18,000 million from our defence spending. Even if we simply reduced our level of spending to the European average—at least 42 Labour Members have signed a motion calling for that, and we know that that is the fundamental view of most of the Opposition—the programmes on the attack helicopter, the European fighter and the future frigate would be put in jeopardy. If we followed the policy set out by the TGWU, we would, as I have already said, be reduced to acting like traffic wardens.

Mr. Skinner: May I just remind the Minister of what I have told him before—it is getting very wearisome—that the Labour party conference passes resolutions to cut defence expenditure and the Tory Government carry them out?

Mr. Arbuthnot: The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the demands of the Labour party conference to cut defence expenditure. He probably agrees with the TGWU that defence expenditure should be cut by £18 billion, because he does not believe in defence. In that respect, he is representative of the Labour party because one cannot trust Labour on defence.

Mr. Key: If we were to cut defence spending to the European average, would there be a severe cut in the number of jobs in the civilian support industries, such as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? That prospect would be far more frightening to the agency and its work force in my constituency than any proposal for possible privatisation, which could establish it as a world leader.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. We would probably have to get rid of all research on defence and as a result we would have to buy equipment off the shelf. We would have to do that at the cheapest possible cost, which would almost certainly mean buying equipment from the United States of America—in fact, all our equipment would have to come from abroad. That would mean that the benefits to the defence industry from exports would be lost. In 1994, we won 15 per cent. of the world defence export market, but that was not good enough, because in 1995 that figure went up to 19 per cent. That success shows the strength of British industry today, and that strength would be lost if we were to cut spending on defence as the Labour party advocates.

Land Mines

Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [22317]

Mr. Soames: IFOR estimates that up to 5 million land mines, including anti-personnel mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.

Mr. Touhig: Given the appalling risks that face our troops in Bosnia as a result of the indiscriminate use of millions of land mines, is the Minister aware that General Shalikashvili, the chairman of American joint chiefs of staff, has said that he is inclined to eliminate all anti-personnel mines? Does the hon. Gentleman share his view?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made the view of the Government plain just now, but it is worth drawing to the attention of the House that such mines are a serious matter and that our troops are in some danger from them. The House should know that members of the Royal Engineers, greatly to their credit, have played an extraordinary, gallant and successful role in helping to de-mine Bosnia. They have played an important role in teaching about mine awareness in schools. Where it is able to do so, all of IFOR makes a vital contribution towards trying to return Bosnia to some form of normality.

Mr. Brazier: As well as the excellent measures that my hon. Friend has just outlined, can he also confirm that our noble Friend Lady Chalker set aside money last year to assist programmes for mine clearance in a number of countries, including Bosnia? Does my hon. Friend also agree that we could contribute towards the long-term curbing of the dreadful problem in Bosnia and elsewhere by promoting research into more revolutionary methods to detect and clear mines, because we are still basically working with war time technologies?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has made an important and valid point. I confirm that my noble Friend Baroness Chalker has laid aside such money. I warmly endorse and agree with his suggestion about research into land mines, and he can rest assured that we are playing a leading role in trying to bring this forward. He, with his expertise, has a valued role in keeping us up to the mark, and we shall be grateful to hear from him if he has any other ideas to this end.

Mrs. Mahon: Is it not obscene to carry on supporting the manufacture of land mines when the Overseas Development Administration spends millions of pounds on land mine clearance and in helping amputees? Do the Minister and the Government feel any shame whatsoever when they see the limbless victims of this dreadful policy?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady almost certainly is not aware that anti-personnel mines have not been exported from this country for many years. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, considers mines, including anti-personnel mines, to be legitimate defence weapons when used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. Our armed forces have and need these weapons—without them, they would be less effective. It is plain that the hon. Lady is right: it is not something that we wish to prolong for any longer than we need to do so. We are working, together with everyone else, to try to bring an end to this regime—but we will not do so unilaterally.

Maritime Patrol Aircraft

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procurement of replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [22318]

Mr. Arbuthnot: We are currently assessing bids for a replacement for the RAF's maritime patrol aircraft and we expect to award a contract in the late summer.

Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that only the Orion 2000 team is putting forward a brand new aircraft as part of its package? Will he also accept that the majority of the goods, products and services purchased with this particular project will come from the United Kingdom, including the majority of the technology from GEC Marconi and Hunting Aviation, which will do a great deal of the work, manufacture and assembly—and which includes the important firm of Baxter, Woodhouse and Taylor from Poynton in my constituency, which employs almost 400 people? Will he ensure that Britain gets value for money not only in respect of technology but in respect of employment and manufacturing?

Mr. Arbuthnot: I have wronged my hon. Friend—he, too, is assiduous in fighting for his constituency interests, always has been and always will be. I do not want to anticipate the competition that we are running at the moment. I am delighted to say that there is a high United Kingdom content in all three of the aircraft that we are being offered for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. I had the great benefit of going out with a Nimrod aircraft last week and seeing some of the excellent work that the maritime patrols do, both in anti-submarine warfare and

in the search and rescue operations in the area of RAF Kinloss. That is a valuable team, which will continue to do very good work for the RAF and for the country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has referred to Nimrod. Does he accept that the refurbishing of Nimrod, as proposed by British Aerospace and Short Bombadier, would be a better bid than the Orion?

Mr. Arbuthnot: Again, I do not wish to anticipate the competition—however, it is delightful to see the battle fought out on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is most important is that the RAF gets the aircraft it wants, within the confines of the expenditure necessary to do so? In this context, will he ensure that, in relation to the aircraft that he picks, the full-life costs will be taken into account as well as the initial purchasing price?

Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right to attach importance to the full-life costs of the aircraft. We shall take into account all the factors that we usually take into account in considering this competition. I am pleased to say that the Royal Air Force has been very closely consulted about this procurement, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful remarks.

Public Funds

Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department uses to judge whether it provides value for public funds; and what assessment he has made of the extent to which his Department meets these. [22319]

Mr. Arbuthnot: My Department judges expenditure proposals in terms of their cost-effectiveness in contributing to defence objectives, using techniques such as investment appraisal and operational analysis. We are determined to achieve the best value for the taxpayer's money allocated to defence.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is it really good value for money to continue to employ the Ministry of Defence police in investigating Martin Gregory, the producer of the "Dispatches" programme on instruments of torture, to whom the Department of Trade and Industry has already paid out £55,000 in libel damages? Would it not be better if the MOD police were to investigate the role of the British Government and British firms in exporting instruments of torture to despicable regimes?

Mr. Arbuthnot: No. I will write to the hon. Lady about the first matter, but it would not be right to accept the second matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22335]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Prime Minister confirm that a typical person made redundant has to face a 20 per cent. pay cut in order to find a new job? As more than 10 million people have experienced unemployment under the present Government, that is an awful lot of pay cuts and job insecurity. Will the Prime Minister publish the truth in his manifesto—that Conservatives make things worse for working men and women?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the extent to which unemployment has fallen in this country—faster than in any comparable European country. It is down by more than a quarter on its peak some time ago. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that in western Europe we all operate in the same economic climate. More people are getting back into work, more people are in work and there is a lower level of unemployment in this country than in any comparable European country.

Sir Jim Spicer: Did my right hon. Friend by any chance see "On the Record" on Sunday, when education was discussed and we were treated to the sight of a Liberal councillor from Kingston who spoke out very strongly against any selective education, but who sends her daughter to a grammar school? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is the true working of a Lib-Lab pact?

The Prime Minister: At the risk of causing enormous offence to an important television programme, I confess to the House that I did not watch "On the Record" on Sunday or the Sunday before, and I suspect that I shall not watch it next Sunday. I notice nods of agreement from the Opposition. We seem to have a cross-party consensus on that point. Nevertheless, I can certainly appreciate what my hon. Friend says, and I doubt that that is an isolated incident.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall, in the days when he was flatly against a referendum on Europe, saying that referendums were introduced only to cover up divisions in the Cabinet and none such existed in his Cabinet? Are not those divisions precisely the reason why he is in favour of a referendum today?

The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say that when he has just announced a referendum to sort out internal difficulties in his party about his policy. I have said that I will contemplate a referendum on a particular issue of policy that has never occurred before. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ballot all his party members about Labour policy—which is a novel proposition: I am not entirely sure how one can ballot people about something that does not exist.

Mr. Blair: I suspect that I shall have rather more support for my referendum than the Cabinet will give the right hon. Gentleman's. Why cannot the Prime Minister answer now the question that he was able to answer a few months ago? Has the Chancellor changed his mind—a nod or a shake of the head will do? We have paralysis in the Government—even the big man of the Cabinet cannot get his way. Is not the decision being taken only because the Government are weak, divided and are being pushed around by their factions?

The Prime Minister: That was well prepared, but the right hon. Gentleman was too shy to mention that he has changed his policies on Europe, defence, the trade unions and on almost everything else. As for divisions, I have in my hand a paper entitled "Europe Isn't Working". It is produced by 50 Labour Members and it opposes every aspect of European policy that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
As to a single currency, the deputy leader of the Labour party—whom we miss today—says, "Yes, we are against a single currency." The right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—who is also not here—says that he, personally, is in favour of a single currency. Labour Members of the European Parliament are in favour of a single currency within the time limits and constraints, and the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) says that it is irresponsible. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to dance in the midst of those divisions while pretending that there are none. The reality is that his party is as split as it can be on that issue.

Mr. Blair: I have a suggestion for the Prime Minister: why does he not put his Government out of their misery and give the country a referendum on a matter that it really wants to decide—his Government or ours?

The Prime Minister: In order to be kind and generous to the right hon. Gentleman, I am giving him time to find some policies so that he has some basis—other than negative campaigning—upon which to conduct an election.

Mr. Marlow: While our masters in Brussels are deciding how to dispose of the British beef industry, will my right hon. Friend suggest to them that, if they are to slaughter perfectly healthy cattle, the beef would be better used as food aid rather than being incinerated? If people were faced with a one in three chance of dying of starvation or a one in 100 million chance of contracting Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, surely they would eat the beef.

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend intimates, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is in Luxembourg today trying to restore public confidence to the beef markets across Europe. He is making good progress and he will keep negotiating until a package of measures is agreed. It is no longer certain whether that will occur today: there is a long way to go in the negotiations and I anticipate that they will continue for many hours yet.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, as we speak, jobs are being lost and small farms and small firms are going to the wall because of delay and indecision on BSE? Does he acknowledge that he could take some steps without waiting for Brussels? I shall suggest three: first, launch a British standard for quality British beef; secondly, launch a public information campaign to correct misrepresentation and misinformation, which is still widespread and damaging; and, thirdly, get together with the banks and put together a credit guarantee scheme to help small firms and farmers until compensation arrives. I beg the Prime Minister to act now, when he can, rather than stand there wringing his hands and waiting for Brussels to open the door.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's last sentence beggars belief, given his party's policy on the European Union, but I agree with him about the need to do whatever we can to help the beef industry. Nine or 10 measures have been taken already; a number are currently under consideration and more are under discussion in Brussels. The Agriculture Council is considering and discussing the possibility of extending the scope of intervention to deal with short-term confidence problems. That would clearly be of great benefit to many British farmers. We are also considering a package of measures to deal with BSE. We are discussing its funding and a number of other confidence-building measures for the market. The right hon. Gentleman knows that although there are certain things that we can do in Britain, the fundamental decision needs to be a cross-European one, as he himself told the House the other day.

Mr. Robathan: My right hon. Friend will know of the concern of some Conservative Members about recent developments in defence. Therefore, will he study carefully reports of a recent conference which considered defence issues, found a potential peace dividend of some £18 billion and, yet again, voted for unilateral nuclear disarmament? When he discusses the resolutions of the recent Transport and General Workers Union conference, will he recall that that union sponsors not only the shadow Chancellor, but the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I am not sure what proportion of the Labour party's income comes from the Transport and General Workers Union, but it is clearly substantial. If accurately reported, its proposition on cutting defence would effectively leave Britain with no defence at all. I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been planning a defence review. I had not anticipated that it would be quite so draconian, but as half their policy is determined by trade unions, we cannot be certain that that will not prove to be the case if it is the policy of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Miss Hoey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22336]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Miss Hoey: The Prime Minister issued an invitation at the weekend via the national newspapers for a debate with the Leader of the Opposition on national television. Now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has accepted that invitation, would the Prime Minister like to name the day?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady says the nicest things. I enjoy my tussles with the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesdays and Thursdays and on other occasions. I was as surprised as the hon. Lady was to read what was reported over the weekend. I recall very well, as a young untried candidate, trying exactly the same trick with an

experienced Labour Member of Parliament. I recall that he said to me at the time, "Go and sort out your policies first. Then I shall consider these stupid PR stunts."

Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22337]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Brown: Notwithstanding the exchanges between the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), is not the answer for the Prime Minister to give the people of the country on the issue of beef, in Easter week, when Grimsby and Cleethorpes holds the biggest fish market of the year, the message that people should consume Grimsby fish? Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Frank Flear, who is behind the new fish docks in Grimsby and Cleethorpes that the Government supported with massive investment, and urge the people of Britain this week to consume Grimsby and Cleethorpes fish?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to invite the nation to eat Grimsby fish, and fish from elsewhere in the British Isles. I hope that, having had their fish, people will spare some time to eat some beef too.

Mr. McAllion: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 April. [22338]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McAllion: Is the Prime Minister aware that, at the recent national poverty hearings in London, one single mother, registered disabled and dependent on income support, described how she had been forced to place her son in the care of her local authority, because underfunding prevented that authority from meeting his special educational needs in any way except through its residential budget? How does he explain to that family, and to the families of the one in three of today's children born into the same oppressive poverty, the contemptible and odious Tory slogan that "life is better under the Conservatives"? For the poor, it most certainly is not; and for that, the right hon. Gentleman and the party behind him are directly responsible.

The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman is honest enough to say that he thinks that his party should put up taxes—I think that he knows that it will. He at least has had the candour to say that in public; it is his idea of the future. He is quite wrong about poverty. In fact, the vast majority of people are better off. Average incomes have risen by more than a third, even after allowing for inflation. The average income of all family types has risen. Pensioner average incomes since the Government came to power are up by about 50 per cent. after inflation. Average incomes of the unemployed and others not in work have also risen. That would not have happened but for the policies, both economic and social, that we have followed.

Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle

Mr. Jim Cousins: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation at the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle." [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Would Members leaving please do so quietly?

Mr. Cousins: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to put my case to the House. Late last night I became aware of a police investigation into four suspicious deaths in the adult intensive care ward of the Royal Victoria Infirmary trust in my constituency. The unit serves a wide area of the northern region. It has been known to be under intense work load pressure for several years—pressure which neither the trust nor the regional health authority has dealt with.
The pressure on the children's intensive care unit is worse still. Young people are often referred to the adult unit, thereby adding to the pressure on it; unfortunately, one of the deaths under investigation is that of a very young teenager.
The Minister must come to the House to tell us how he proposes to inquire into the crisis in intensive care beds in the northern region. I hope that he will also tell us how he proposes to inquire into other matters that raise serious doubts about the competence and good judgment of the trust management.
Why, for instance, has it taken four years for one of these suspicious deaths to come to light? This is a major high-tech teaching hospital. Why was it left to the coroner to call in the police? What was the quality of the trust's legal advice? Why did it take five weeks from the initial complaints for the coroner to be called in? Why did it take a fortnight after the internal inquiry had identified four suspicious deaths and sacked a nursing sister for the coroner to be called in?
This smacks of weakness, confusion and cover-up. There are matters here which no police investigation, however thorough, can deal with. The Minister must come to the House and set up an independent public inquiry into the situation at the hospital right now.
I should perhaps add that I have often been a visitor and a patient at the hospital, which has also served my family. I raise the matter not because I want to denigrate the hospital but because I wish to restore its good name and good reputation.

Madam Speaker: I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has said. I have to give my decision, of course, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I cannot therefore submit the application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

PREVENTION OF TERRORISM (ADDITIONAL POWERS)

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Secretary Sir George Young, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to extend powers of search in connection with acts of terrorism and terrorist investigations; confer powers on constables in relation to areas on which police cordons are imposed in connection with terrorist investigations; and confer powers in connection with the prevention of acts of terrorism to impose prohibitions and restrictions in relation to vehicles on roads: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time today and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Freezing of Human Embryos

Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the freezing of human embryos.
The Bill that I am introducing today would have the effect of stopping the practice of freezing human embryos in hospitals and clinics where in vitro fertilisation treatment is provided. My Bill proposes to do this by adding the three words "freezing an embryo" to the list of procedures that cannot be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Medical science is such that practically every week an announcement is made about or there is a report of some new breakthrough which will help any number of people with medical problems. Such announcements, sadly, often give hope to our constituents when the reality is that the report is simply speculation and the procedure being suggested is only at the trial stage.
I well recall the detail of the debate that we had in 1990 in the House when we discussed human fertilisation and embryology. It is quite clear that in 1996 we know much more than we did then about the effects of freezing the human embryo. I am grateful for a report that an organisation called CORE, led by Josephine Quintavalle, has produced; for the work of Jack Scarisbrick of Life; and, as ever, for the assistance of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, under the leadership of Phyllis Bowman.
This issue has been highlighted by the Government's introduction of regulations to allow for embryos stored in freezers for the past five years to be stored for another five years. I must tell the Government that I much regret that, apparently, those regulations will not be debated on the Floor of the House.
Nearly 300,000 embryos were created between 1991 and 1994. Most were destroyed or experimented on, but some 63,000 were frozen. Many of our citizens regard such freezing of human life as deeply repugnant. The licensing body admits that it has lost track of the parents of 3,000 of the embryos. Hon. Members will have followed in the media recently many disturbing stories about the plight of those human embryos generated in the course of IVF treatment who were surplus to immediate requirements and so were put into cold storage for future use, but whose parents can no longer be traced. Sometimes the parents have remarried or left the country. Others may have decided that the annual fee of £100, which parents must pay for the storage of their offspring, was not worth it. Yet others may have lost interest for other reasons.
We are facing a tangled and unfortunate moral dilemma. What should we do with those orphans? There is still no convincing evidence that we understand the full long-term implications of cryopreservation. Recent negative reports warn about hazards. Embryo freezing is not really a successful technique, with just a 7 to 10 per cent. live baby rate. It will be outdated quickly by new developments in the freezing of eggs rather than embryos.
Clinical opinion and scientific reports suggest that the possibility of significant long-term damage, as a result of cryopreservation, cannot be ruled out. It is extraordinary that only one major study into the long-term effects of cryopreservation has so far been conducted. Drugs should undergo extensive toxicological tests on a number of different animals over a long time before they proceed to clinical trials.
The only study that has examined the long-term effects of cryopreservation has raised concerns. The ectopic pregnancy rate for unfrozen embryos is also inexplicably high. There is growing evidence that the experience of freezing and thawing not only kills on an unacceptably large scale but can cause serious long-term damage to the survivors. There is evidence from Cambridge in the United States, and especially from France, that even if embryos survive the experience, the shock of being frozen can cause serious genetic dislocation that could manifest itself perhaps years later in the form of major abnormalities. It is to be regretted that attempts were made to discredit the findings of a distinguished team of doctors in Paris.
The status of the embryo has never been defined. In legal disputes we are in triple limbo because embryos are considered as human beings, sort of human or simply property. If gamete donation has been involved in the case of abandoned embryos, it is even harder to decide who owns an embryo. Despite repeated statements from the HI-BA that all assisted reproductive technology is done in the interests of the offspring, no research is available from the child's perspective. It is lamentable that 18 years from the time of the first IVF baby, no such research has been commissioned. An examination of European practices in that regard leaves little doubt that United Kingdom legislation is liberal compared with that in Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Spain or Sweden.
Any fertility treatment that produces surplus human embryos is contrary to the respect that is due to early human life, and it results in the deliberate or accidental killing of those embryos. Interestingly, the Hammersmith hospital does not carry out cryopreservation as it thinks that the process has been insufficiently tested and does not have a good record. This is a classic case of rushing into legislation without more careful consideration.
Some hon. Members are uncomfortable with the HFEA's regulatory regime as constituted by its present membership. It has been said that we think that it is enough to discover new things but that we do not realise that knowing more demands a corresponding development of morality. In the freezing of human embryos the end does not justify the means.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Vivian Bendall, Mr. Joe Benton, Mr. Toby Jessel, Dame Jill Knight, Ms Liz Lynne, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Rev. Martin Smyth and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

FREEZING OF HUMAN EMBRYOS

Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to ban the freezing of human embryos: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That—

(1) At this day's sitting:—

(a) as soon as the proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown relating to Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill (Allocation of Time) have been concluded, the order for the second reading of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill shall be read;
(b) notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;

(2) at the sitting on Wednesday 3rd April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until she shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both

Houses.— [Mr. Newton.]

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill (Allocation of Time)

Madam Speaker: I have selected amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and amendment (e), a manuscript amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill:—
Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading
1.—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.
(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.
(3) The proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(4) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee.
(5) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall. notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(6) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(7) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on Consideration of the Bill are taken.
Conclusion of proceedings
2.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and


(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments
3. The proceedings on Consideration of any Lords Amendments shall be completed at the sitting on 3rd April and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3 above—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amemdments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
5.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—


(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
Business Committee
6. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Dilatory Motions
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
Extra time
8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.
Supplemental orders
9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.
(2) If at any day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if the sitting is suspended before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
Saving
10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.
Recommittal
11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
As the House knows, yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary explained in a statement to the House why, in the current security circumstances following the calling off of the IRA ceasefire, he had been persuaded of the need to confer additional powers on the police. He described his proposals yesterday, and they are set out in detail in the draft Bill which was also published yesterday, and which, in the past 10 minutes, has been metamorphosed into an actual Bill and introduced in the House.
I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend's view of the need for the Bill is shared by the overwhelming majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House. The official Opposition have made it clear that they are satisfied with the case that has been made, and while the Liberal Democrats have, perhaps, been more delphic—I hope that that is not unfair—I think it reasonable to say that their concerns appeared to be with the procedures proposed rather with the policy itself. On the procedures, I can only say that the Government think—having made the judgment that the powers are needed—that it must be right to try to enact them before Parliament rises for Easter, rather than waiting a fortnight or more for Parliament to resume. That means that the House must complete its consideration of the Bill today, so that it can be dealt with in another place tomorrow with a view to


securing Royal Assent tomorrow evening. The purpose of the motion is to enable the House to achieve that in a sensible and orderly way.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Could not what the Leader of the House wants have been achieved—even taking into account the Home Secretary's delay in producing the Bill—if the Home Secretary had published the Bill last week, and if each day this week, including Thursday, had been used to enable us to discuss separate stages on separate days? Consultation with outside bodies could have taken place between the sittings.

Mr. Newton: It has been necessary for full consideration to be given to these matters within Government. The policy was agreed collectively by the Government only last week. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has acted with commendable speed in the wake of that, and as a result we need to transact the business in the way laid down in the motion.

Mr. Max Madden: First, what is the most recent precedent for the Government's recommendation of the procedure that we are being asked to follow? Secondly, can the Leader of the House explain—as the Home Secretary signally failed to do yesterday—the motivation for the Bill's being rushed through the House in this way?

Mr. Newton: I cannot immediately recall a precise precedent, but then I cannot recall precisely similar circumstances. Terrorism has been resumed in this country; the police have made clear their belief that they need these additional powers in order to have the maximum scope for combating further instances of that terrorism; and we are operating within a day or so of the Easter recess.
The hon. Gentleman made the same point in response to my business statement yesterday. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend made the case for the proposals absolutely clear in his own statement yesterday—and, indeed, that has been accepted by those on the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Everyone accepts that the Bill is very important. How can the right hon. Gentleman justify having allowed less than five minutes for the discussion of each amendment—presuming that all were selected—quite apart from any time spent on voting?

Mr. Newton: I defend it on the basis of my general judgment that the amount of time that we have provided for discussion of the Bill and the motion—to which I shall refer in a moment—is appropriate for proper debate of the proposals in the particular circumstances, and against the background of a resumption of terrorism on the mainland.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Over the 16 years in which I have been in the House, I have noticed that when legislation is guillotined it invariably goes wrong. Why can we not have real time in which to discuss what may—I do not know—be a perfectly valid Bill?

Mr. Newton: Let me repeat what I just said. I think that the motion provides appropriate time in the particular

circumstances—Opposition Front Benchers have found that view persuasive on the basis of briefing that they have been freely given—and in view of the fact that the House is about to rise for the Easter recess. It will not surprise the House that, despite my support for the proposals of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, it gives me no pleasure whatever to be moving a timetable motion. It is in fact the first that I have moved for more than two years. I simply believe that, in the circumstances with which we are confronted, it is both sensible and necessary.
I am once again grateful, as I said yesterday, to the hon. Members for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the constructive manner in which they acknowledged that, and made it clear that they would not stand in the way. Perhaps I might assure them in return, particularly the hon. Member for Dewsbury, who made some cautionary comments yesterday, that it does not in any way lessen my commitment following the Jopling reforms, during which time I have worked closely with her, to achieve the progress of legislation by voluntary understandings, when circumstances are normal, through the usual channels.
The motion provides—it is already obvious that it is controversial and will no doubt be the subject of further comment—that all stages of the Bill will be completed during this sitting. It provides three hours for debate on Second Reading, and then two hours for proceedings in a Committee of the House. Report and Third Reading will end three hours after the start of the Committee stage, which should allow an hour for Third Reading, less any time spent on Divisions at the end of the Committee stage. The remaining provisions are more or less standard for such motions.
As I have said, given the urgent need that we have identified and the exigencies of the calendar, I think that such provisions will generally—although I accept not universally—be regarded as reasonable, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: We are today dealing with a Bill in a very unusual, if not unprecedented, manner. I should make it clear at the outset that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I said yesterday, we do not underestimate the importance of the fight against terrorism. It is on the basis of information given in security briefings to my hon. Friends that we are accepting the word of the Government that the Bill and the time scale are absolutely essential. However, I must emphasise, to the Leader of the House in particular, that our willingness to facilitate the passage of the Bill does not mean that we are happy about the position in which the Government have placed the House.
There are two separate matters. First, there is the fact that everyone—I believe—feels bounced into consideration of the legislation because of the lack of notice that has been given. More could have been done to ease that feeling among hon. Members. Secondly, there is a specific problem that the proceedings are subject to the guillotine motion that the Leader of the House has just moved.
On the need for the guillotine motion, I accept that if measures such as those in the Bill are deemed necessary on security grounds, it is reasonable for the


Government to ensure that they get legislation through the House in the required time scale. On that basis, I shall not be voting against the timetable motion. That still begs the question, however, why the House has been bounced in such a manner into considering the legislation in these difficult circumstances today. I do not believe—my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has already referred to the point—that hasty legislation is likely to be good legislation. There is always a danger that if we legislate in haste, we may implement defective provisions. As a result, all hon. Members are faced with significant difficulties. The time scale has meant that it has been very difficult for Members to table amendments. Indeed, a great deal of pressure has been put not only on Members but on Officers of the House in order for it to be feasible to consider the Bill properly today.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is there not an immense principle involved here—that one should never guillotine legislation that has implications for civil liberties?

Mrs. Taylor: There are always difficulties in saying never in politics. A balance must be reached in difficult situations such as this and people must weigh up competing claims, and that presents the House with an extra difficulty. That is why the time scale is providing so many difficulties and—if I may say so—so many suspicions on the part of hon. Members who believe that the Home Secretary and the Government are bouncing the legislation through and that we are taking their word on its merits.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In answer to questions yesterday, the Home Secretary made it clear that the stop-and-search measures are comprehensive and will not apply simply to the rounding up of alleged terrorists. The net result will be that anybody can be caught in the net, and that is a matter of civil liberties and justice. The Home Secretary made the game plan abundantly clear. Is my hon. Friend seriously happy with that?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn—the shadow Home Secretary—has received significant assurances from the Home Secretary on such aspects as the monitoring of the workings of the new proposals, and he is satisfied with those assurances. The Home Secretary said in the House yesterday that many of the measures are technical, and added that he is trying to bring the powers of the police in Great Britain into line with those available to the police in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) was, I think, referring to section 13A of the Act, but the Opposition have accepted the Home Secretary's assurances in good faith on the basis of what he said in the House and in conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.

Mr. McNamara: Can my hon. Friend show where those assurances on protection appear in the Bill? She said that the powers in the Bill were roughly the same as other powers, and that the Government were putting them on the statute book. Has she read paragraph 10 of the

schedule which says that the powers are additional to any other powers and that those of common law or any other enactment are not affected? Will not the situation remain as it was before the passage of the Bill?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend—who follows these matters closely—was here yesterday when certain assurances were given by the Home Secretary, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be pressed on these during our subsequent debates should the motion be carried by the House. The points that my hon. Friend are making—he is right to make them—are significant as they illustrate people's concerns that we are being bounced into legislation affecting civil liberties without adequate consultation.

Mr. Beith: Bearing in mind the fact that the original prevention of terrorism Act went through under a Labour Government in one day without a timetable motion, and that the hon. Lady has promised the Government—on behalf of the Opposition—full co-operation with the Bill, why does she think that the tight timetable motion is required? Who does she think will prevent the Bill getting on to the statute book?

Mrs. Taylor: A business motion was before the House in 1974 to make sure that that timetable was protected. At that time, the House was not up against a recess as we are at present. The Government are saying that they wish to protect the business so that there can be no delay or spill-over into the recess. If Ministers do not agree with that explanation, it is for them to explain. We are talking about Government business and while the Opposition are facilitating the process, we are not responsible for the legislation.
In view of what has been said, I hope that the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Home Secretary will understand that by introducing the legislation in this way, they have created many suspicions about the haste and many fears, especially about the changes to which my hon. Friends have referred in respect of section 13 of the prevention of terrorism Act. Any changes that involve or might involve individual civil liberties are bound to raise concerns. Even those who promote the restrictions in the Bill must recognise that there has to be a fine balance between individual rights and the safety of the public. The Home Secretary must take that concern on board when he makes his speech on Second Reading.

Mr. Madden: A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend rightly said that the powers in the Bill to stop and search pedestrians have applied in Northern Ireland for a long time. Is she aware of the outcome of those provisions in Northern Ireland? How many persons have been arrested, charged and convicted of terrorist offences? If my hon. Friend is unaware of that information—clearly, we have not been given any time to seek such information—does she believe that there is an overwhelming responsibility on the Home Secretary to convince us of the case later today?

Mrs. Taylor: Of course there is an overwhelming responsibility on the Home Secretary to convince the House of the case for his proposals. That is why it will be for him and not the Opposition to answer questions such as the one my hon. Friend has just raised.


My understanding is that the powers are somewhat more limited than my hon. Friend suggested, although I acknowledge that he has a great deal of information on these matters.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Lady really think that the British people or the people of Northern Ireland would forgive my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary if he did not take the matter seriously ahead of the very significant anniversary this weekend?

Mrs. Taylor: We have not demurred from that view; that is one of the reasons why we have accepted the case put to us for dealing with the Bill in this way today. However, I do not think that that should make us any easier about accepting very unusual procedures. It is incumbent on Ministers on all occasions to provide as much notice as possible of any changes in legislation that they wish to make and that is why I regret the fact that we have not had more notice of these changes.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that Home Office briefings, as reported by the media yesterday, said that the Home Office did not expect any particular problems over the coming weekend?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not responsible for Home Office briefings; I am responsible for the collective decision of the shadow Cabinet which was made on the basis of the overall briefings that we received. We face a real problem and a real danger. If the Government say that there is a significant risk and if the Bill can minimise that risk and help to protect lives, we have a responsibility to facilitate its passage through the House. I hope that in view of all that has been said, we can have an explanation from the Home Secretary of why no indication whatever of the possibility of the changes was given during the recent debate on the prevention of terrorism Act just three weeks ago. It would have been wiser if the Home Secretary had given a proper indication that these changes were under consideration. We shall all have to make our own judgment about why he did not do so.
It is important that the House is consulted where possible. It is not just a matter of the pride of Members. It is a fact that the more Members are consulted and involved in decision making, the better the chances are that we shall get our legislation right and that the Government will not have to return to the House for further amendment because of deficiencies in the legislation.
In conclusion, we are not happy with the way in which the Government have forced such instant decisions upon the House, but, for the reasons that I gave earlier, we will not stand in the way of the Bill or the proposed time scale. However we trust, and ask for an assurance, that the House will not be treated in such a cavalier way in future.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, amendment (a) in line 8, leave out 'two' and insert `five'.
We should start from the working assumption that the IRA is likely to seek to plant bombs at any time and that the means of so doing can be concealed more effectively

than ever before. We do not need a high-level security briefing to know that. It was my assumption through much of the period of the ceasefire. Ministers conceded that it was well known the IRA remained active. Amendment (a) would give us more time to consider in Committee the details of how we seek to address this menace.
Let nobody assume that the reason for taking more time and having more careful consideration of the matter is any doubt about the possibility, or even the likelihood, of the IRA planning further bombing attacks. Nor is there any doubt about the threat to civil liberties that the IRA represents. There are few greater threats to civil liberties than having life and liberty taken away by a bomb. The question is by what means we can effectively prevent that and how can we ensure that those means are properly discussed in Parliament before they are placed on the statute book.
We must ask whether it is urgent that we should bring these measures on to the statute book. The police have been putting these proposals forward for a long time—some of them for years rather than months. Since the South Quay bombing, the Home Secretary has been well aware of the police's desire to have clarified their powers under the law that they use to mount searches and cordons. The provisions are primarily about the power that police can use in cordoning off an area or mounting a search.
The police do those things under existing powers. If there is a bomb threat or emergency this afternoon or tonight, the police will not wait for Parliament to change the law. They will use existing powers, as they have done in the past, and obtain the co-operation of the public in clearing an area of vehicles, stopping access to it and ensuring that members of public are not put in danger by entering it. That is what happens now. The police have reasonably requested that the powers under which they do that should be made clearer. We shall discuss that in detail later. There must be some doubt about whether they would depend on these provisions to do what needs to be done.
Even if we take it as read that for the purposes of this weekend the police need the powers, it was open to the Home Secretary to ensure that they received adequate parliamentary debate. He could have brought the Bill forward considerably earlier—even a week ago would have enabled its stages to be properly considered. The Bill was in his hands last Thursday or Friday, if not before. He could have published it then so that interested organisations and bodies, especially those dealing with the courts, could have brought forward proposals for amendments. Having failed to do any of those things, he could yesterday have ensured that the procedure that the House followed would take as much time as was available this week so that it could be done properly. I put it to the Leader of the House, who I think has himself been bounced into this to a considerable extent, that we could have sat on Thursday had he not been so insistent on getting away for holidays.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Holidays?

Mr. Beith: I suspect that that is the pressure on the Government. The hon. Gentleman may, like me, have plans to do constituency work on Thursday, but I suspect


that the Government did not believe that they could keep their Members here on Thursday. Why else did they fail to take the obvious step of ensuring that on each day of this week, a stage of the Bill was taken? For example, the Bill could have been taken in the Lords later on Wednesday and Lords amendments could have been considered on Thursday. That would have enabled us to take the Committee stage on Wednesday, following Second Reading today.
There are a number of ways in which the procedures for the Bill could have been dealt with. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who seem to think that this is some kind of joke should realise that if there are no gaps between the stages of a Bill, the people outside the House, who will have to live with the legislation—some of them will have to arrest people in the street on the basis of it—will not get the chance to consider it properly.
I made some inquiries outside the Metropolitan police area and discovered that in other police authority areas, chief officers were not familiar with what was going on, and did not know the precise content of the proposed powers. Those are the sort of people whom we would consult between the stages of the Bill, to ensure that the powers reached the statute book in an appropriate form.

Sir Michael Shersby: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to 1994, when the House debated extensively the provisions of what is now section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which extended the powers of a constable to search without reasonable suspicion for an offensive weapon? All that is proposed here is to allow a constable to do the same thing in relation to a device—a device that could cause a serious explosion and massive loss of life. That is not a huge change of principle; it is a comparatively minor change. Moreover, the power is hedged around with all the provisions in the 1994 Act, in that a senior police officer has to authorise it and the Home Secretary has to keep a close watch on it. So what is the case for the extension of time, when we are debating something that is simple to understand?

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening to my opening remarks. I said that there was indeed a case for clarifying the powers that the police use in that connection, and that we needed to consider them carefully in detail. It may even be that when we come to those details we shall be able to deal with the matter more expeditiously than would now appear. However, the House will be up against the problem that if there is a substantial debate on the early clauses in Committee, when the axe falls every other clause will be read out as a number and passed into statute without any debate. That is how the timetable works. There is no Business Committee, and no subdivisions within the timetable period. If hon. Members become especially concerned with an early part of the Bill, its later provisions will not be debated at all.
There will be no Report stage, because the Government will accept no amendments. I was struck by the fact that the Leader of the House spoke as if he had already accepted that there would be no Report stage. He said something like, "That will be an hour for Third Reading"—but actually the hour is for both Report stage

and Third Reading. The Leader of the House has already taken as part of the scheme of things the fact that the Government, however wrong they may be shown to be on detail, will not amend the Bill in Committee because they do not want a Report stage. So we can forget about a Report stage. And they will take the same attitude in another place.
That is government by decree. The Government have already decided the precise form that the Bill should take. Whenever Governments make such decisions, they get things wrong. Even with the best will in the world, the best organised Government in the world, with the finest Ministers and the finest civil servants, might still make mistakes. The present Government have a record of making mistakes. The Home Secretary and the Home Office certainly have a record of making mistakes about what the law is, and about the position in which they will be found when the matter comes before the courts. The Home Secretary has made so many such mistakes that he should be bound to expect it to happen in this instance.

Mr. Skinner: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman says on behalf of the Liberal Democrats—there will be no Report stage; it is pretty clear that the Government will get their own way; the debate will be time-limited; the matter should have been dealt with earlier; perhaps we should have sat on Thursday—he seems to be leading up to a great principle. He seems to be about to say not only that he will vote against the guillotine motion, but that such is the nature of the process that he and the whole Liberal Democrat party will vote against the principle of the Bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Beith: It is important that the hon. Gentleman should learn to recognise the difference between the procedures of this place and the contents of a Bill. [Interruption.] It is significant that the Labour party appears to find that idea funny. Labour in office, in both central and local government, sees no difference between the value in its eyes of what it wants to carry out, and the procedures by which we protect people's liberties, and protect proper democratic debate.
There is an important distinction to be drawn between those two factors. One of the things that the Leader of the House is paid to do is to be aware of that distinction, to represent it in Cabinet and to ensure that the House has procedures for controlling the way in which even the most pressing of matters on the Government's agenda are dealt with.
There is always a good reason for doing a bad thing. There is always some compelling argument for undermining the basis on which parliamentary democracy operates, and in a way that will cause damage in the future. I have absolutely no doubt that, just as hon. Members have asked for precedents for this motion, on a future occasion a Minister will say, "We have the precedent in the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996. That Act went through on a timetable motion in one day, with no amendments being accepted. Why should we not do that on any of a wide variety of other pieces of legislation?"
I remind the House that there was no timetable motion when the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 went through; the House simply continued considering it until it had completed


consideration of the amendments. It is possible to imagine a better timetable motion in which the allotted time was subdivided to ensure that each part of the Bill was discussed, but we do not have such a motion before us. The Standing Order relating to the Business Committee will not apply.
The time that is taken up in Committee will be taken off the time allocated for the Report stage and Third Reading. This timetable motion is very unsatisfactory. It has been moved to get the Government off the hook because they delayed introducing the Bill. The Home Secretary then went to the Leader of the House and said, "Can you get this Bill through this week?" The Leader of the House said, "I can do it only on a timetable motion, and a fairly stringent one. No problem; the Labour party will agree to it," and that was that. If that is how we are to run this place, we might as well go home. We are supposed to be here to ensure that the law is properly discussed and considered and that, when it gets on to the statute book, it achieves the purposes for which it was introduced.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I agree wholeheartedly with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Parliament's role in scrutinising legislation. However, since this legislation is being rushed through—it will not be considered and it will be subject to a guillotine motion—can he be clear about that? Does he agree that the best message we can send to the British people when the Government try to treat Parliament with contempt is to say no and vote against the Bill?

Mr. Beith: The opportunity to say no will arise today when we vote on the timetable motion. I hope that most Labour Members will vote with me when we reach that stage; but that remains to be seen.
Another principle that we want to make clear is that we are determined to fight terrorism and to assemble such powers as are necessary for that purpose and consistent with the maintenance of our civil liberties. That is why the Liberal Democrat party has voted for prevention of terrorism legislation when Labour opposed it and continued to vote for it when Labour abstained. We are prepared to make such decisions as long as we have a proper parliamentary process by which to do so. The House is being denied that process today, and it is an extremely bad precedent.
I am quite convinced that, in times to come, there will be criticism of the details of the legislation. Some ordinary police constable who seeks to exercise the powers granted under this legislation will find, when he is called to account, that those powers crumble in his hands. That will happen because the House did not properly consider the powers, which subsequently did not satisfy the purpose for which they were enacted.
I always remember the phrase used by the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he was Solicitor-General, when one of his Bills went before a Special Standing Committee—the type of Committee in which hon. Members scrutinise in detail what a Bill does. After a couple of sittings of the Committee, he announced that he had discovered that the Bill could not satisfy the purpose for which it was intended—it could not do so and it could not be made to do so. I am not suggesting that the proposals in the Bill are in quite such a mess as that,

but it is almost certain that any proper, detailed consideration would discover defects in them and ways in which civil liberties could be more effectively protected. We will be denied that opportunity for scrutiny.
Therefore, I invite the House to extend the time available to the Committee. I also invite the House to ensure that amendments other than Government amendments are voted on at the end of the guillotine period. That measure is contained in an amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), to which he will no doubt speak later.
Who in the House believes that all wisdom resides with Ministers? I hope that not even Conservative Members, let alone Opposition Members, believe that. Hon. Members must know of many occasions when Governments have been forced to accept amendments tabled by Back Benchers or by Opposition Members or have then tabled similar amendments to get the Bill into a proper form. That process will be denied tonight once the guillotine falls.
The people who wrote this Bill are the Government's draftsmen, and they are the only people who will be able to amend it. They will not amend it because the Government do not want that procedure to be brought into force. As I have said, it is government by decree—take it or leave it—and the police and the public will pay the price of it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I take this opportunity to thank you, Madam Speaker, for the arrangements that you set in motion yesterday to allow the House to consider amendments; hon. Members are very grateful to you for that. I do not intend to delay the House on this matter—the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has spoken about parliamentary procedure.
It is important to note that each and every power that we are debating today has been the subject of discussion by the police and the police forces since the explosion at the Baltic Exchange—at least that far back. They have discussed what should be done, what can be done and how it should be done.
Suddenly, the House is being bounced into passing this measure with 24 hours' notice and with limited time. As I pointed out to the Leader of the House, we will have less than five minutes to discuss each of the amendments. If we were properly to debate only one amendment and vote on it, in all probability the remaining time to debate the other amendments would be lost.
We are in a difficult position. Some people have been tempted to say that we should just let the Bill go through and thereby show our contempt for it and for the way in which the House has been treated. Others have said that we should have one debate on one amendment and try to make our points—if we are fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Speaker—either in the Second Reading debate or in the truncated part of the remaining hour after our two-hour debate on the amendment.
The position is difficult because the decision has been made not only by the Government but, sadly, with the agreement of my hon. Friends. It was patently obvious that something was going to happen once we changed our position on the prevention of terrorism Act. Once we had conceded that point without debate, we were easy


pushovers for any other power that the Government might seek to introduce because we could not go back on that decision. That is the way things are at the moment: new powers are being proposed and if we vote against them we will be told that we are denying what we did a fortnight ago.
The Government knew a fortnight ago that they were likely to introduce these powers, but they did not mention them. They knew on Thursday that they were likely to introduce the powers, but there was no mention of them in the business statement. We know that because that was the occasion on which my hon. Friends first had their secret briefings. We are now asked to pass and to accept the legislation on the basis of a secret briefing—and when we are receiving conflicting evidence and signals.
We were told that the Bill has to pass by the weekend because of the significance of Easter in the Republic's calendar—I shall deal with this matter in the Second Reading debate—but last night we were told that we are not expecting any problems over Easter. The threat of Easter was given to my hon. Friends as the reason for this Bill, which was denied by Home Office briefings late last night. Have the Opposition been bounced into agreeing to this matter on the basis of briefings? How specific, direct and objective were the briefings that we have been given to make us accept the guillotine motion?
It is quite outrageous that there will be serious incursions into people's normal civil liberties and that we will have only two hours to discuss them. For the sake of the argument, let us say that the Government are justified in everything that they are doing. However, for them to expect us, as a House and as a democratic assembly, to allow the Bill to go through in two hours flat is a nonsense. People can be stopped in the streets in designated areas and searched, their outer clothing can be removed, their shoes can be removed and their hats can be removed—that will create problems in the Sikh community and in other communities. It has been suggested that we should let it go through in two hours, when the Government have known about the problems since the Baltic Exchange. That is a nonsense.
We should reject the timetable motion because, first, the Government knew about the need for this Bill and could have informed the House earlier; secondly, because their reasoning for bouncing the House into agreeing to the motion is dubious; and, thirdly, because if we are going to remove the civil liberties of many of our citizens, it is their entitlement that the House, the representatives of the people, should examine each amendment more carefully than it is possible to do in five minutes.

Sir Peter Emery: I shall be brief. In a usual situation it would be unacceptable, procedurally, for a Bill to be introduced and pass through all its stages in one day. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said as much, and made it clear that there was a very special and very definite reason for so doing.
Furthermore, if indeed the Home Secretary has been able to convince the leaders of the Opposition that this is a necessary step, the House would be at fault if it did not pass the legislation in one day, as suggested. There are precedents for so doing; we need not rehearse them. They are known, but they are only precedents of the most extreme nature.
If certain outrages were perpetrated in this country between now and when the House returns and we had not taken these measures, we should be very much to blame. Although, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I do not like this procedure, I can see the need for it. As the Leader of the House and hon. Members on both Front Benches said, no hon. Member likes having to do it but, as it is necessary, we should proceed—and proceed quickly, not spend time discussing the timetable motion.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I could hardly believe my ears when I heard the Leader of the House say that he was proposing the motion to enable the House to proceed in a sensible and orderly way. There is nothing sensible or orderly about proposing that, in less than six hours, we debate the detail of draconian legislation that, if passed, will deprive many people of their basic civil rights and that is of questionable value in the campaign against terrorism. By proposing the motion, the Government are treating Parliament with contempt.
I was a Member of the House 22 years ago when the House debated the original Act—the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. As has been said, no timetable motion was deemed necessary then and the legislation passed through both Houses in approximately 48 hours. It was, in retrospect, seen not to be the good legislation that many people had thought it might be. It was rushed through, and I repeat the word "rushed" because, despite the fact that there was no guillotine or timetable motion, it passed through both Houses with inordinate haste. It was in the immediate aftermath of the Birmingham bombings, when there was almost a nationwide knee-jerk reaction; obviously, people were outraged by such atrocities. Many people who were outraged at the time now feel, in retrospect, that the House did not deal with the situation in the best way possible. The legislation that was rushed through Parliament did not help to catch the real culprits in the Birmingham bombings. No fewer than 27,000 people—the vast majority of whom were innocent—have been detained under the prevention of terrorism Act in the past 22 years. I do not think that the precedents for rushing through legislation are good, even when the motive—trying to defeat terrorism—is.
I am amazed also that it is less than three weeks since the House debated the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. Some time was allocated for the debate—perhaps not as much as several hon. Members would have liked, but I had the opportunity to make a five-minute contribution, as did other hon. Members. In opening and in summing up the debate, Ministers did not hint at the need for additional powers. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—who I believe is a member of the Security Commission and has access to security information—suggested that such a proposal has probably been lying around in the Home Office collecting dust for some months, if not years. Therefore, I think that it is incumbent on the Home Secretary to tell us why the dust is now being shaken from the legislation and why it is being put before the House.
I do not understand it. Less than three weeks ago, the Home Secretary seemed quite satisfied with the status quo of the powers in the prevention of terrorism Act. He told us that Lord Lloyd of Berwick is reviewing the legislation. Has Lord Lloyd issued an interim report


Stating that the powers in the existing prevention of terrorism Act are inadequate and putting the case for additional powers? I do not believe that further draconian measures are justified at this stage—particularly powers to stop and search people who are going about their lawful activities.

Mr. Peter Shore: I have listened with great sympathy to my hon. Friend's remarks. It clearly would have been far preferable if the Home Secretary had anticipated, as it were, the 80th anniversary of the Dublin uprising of 1916 and tabled amendments to be debated properly when the Act was renewed a fortnight ago. I accept that point and I fully understand my hon. Friend's feelings.
I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises, however, that, if the Government receive serious information about a renewed threat, we have a duty to err on the side of caution and to protect our own people. I speak as a Member of Parliament who represents one of the two constituencies in Tower Hamlets where the appalling atrocity was committed not long ago. People might not understand it if passionate defenders of the rights of the individual, such as my hon. Friend, did not consider that fact.

Mr. Canavan: I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view: he obviously speaks in defence of his constituents. My fear is that the Bill could be counter-productive because, in the campaign against terrorism—which is absolutely legitimate and necessary to defend my constituents, my right hon. Friend's constituents and those of every right hon. and hon. Member—good relations between the police and the community are absolutely essential.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech that is much more suitable to a Second Reading debate, and I would be glad to hear it at that time. For the moment, however, it would be more appropriate for him to refer to the guillotine and the timetable motion.

Mr. Canavan: As we are debating the timetable motion rather than considering the Bill on Second Reading, I am sorry not to be able to go into more detail.
We should be careful, however, about rushing through legislation that could be counter-productive in the campaign against terrorism. We all want effective powers to defeat terrorism, but Parliament should be given the time and the opportunity carefully to scrutinise such measures to ensure that they are necessary, that they are effective and, above all, that they are not counter-productive. So far, I have not been convinced on any of those counts.
If time permits, during the subsequent debate I might be persuaded by the Home Secretary or other hon. Members of the need for powers of search regarding cargoes at ports or uninhabited properties, or powers to impose parking restrictions and cordon off certain areas. I am not keen on such measures, but I might be persuaded of them during the debate. I am absolutely opposed to the powers of stopping and searching innocent people and no one can accuse me of being soft on law and order.
If we are looking to rush through emergency legislation in a few hours between now and the Easter recess, I honestly believe that there is a stronger case—and that

there would be widespread public support—for rushing through emergency legislation on gun control in view of the recent Dunblane massacre. I tabled an early-day motion, which was signed by more than 120 hon. Members, calling for a ban on the private possession of handguns and a stricter control of all firearms. Not one Tory Member supported it. The Home Secretary continues to allow gunmen to walk the streets while innocent people can be stopped and searched while going about their lawful business.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am disappointed that the Government have tabled a guillotine motion. They could at least have looked back to the original prevention of terrorist legislation in 1974 and followed that model. At that time, we had a reasonable amount of time on Second Reading and a lengthy debate on amendments. The Government made it quite clear that they were prepared to—and did—accept some of the amendments. Most important, the Government firmly told Parliament, "It is an emergency measure. We want to do it now, but we shall return to it and do it properly if we want to keep it for any length of time."
The measure was in force for 12 months. It then lapsed and was replaced by an Act of Parliament that received full scrutiny in Committee and the House had the opportunity to consider it with care.
If the Government are telling us that there will be a particular crisis over the next weekend, the next three weeks or the next three months and that they need to rush through legislation that severely restricts individuals' rights because they believe the threat to be so great, I can understand the need for it. If that is indeed what they want, they should seriously consider new clause 1, which proposes that the Act should cease to have effect after four months—a perfectly reasonable argument.
During yesterday's statement, the Home Secretary seemed to be arguing for this option half the time; but during the other half, he seemed to be suggesting that the measure is not really very draconian or important: it is just designed to clarify powers that the police think already exist. If the Government are aiming at clarity, surely we should take our time and produce carefully thought out legislation that is easy to enforce. The Government will have to make up their mind.
My first reason for opposing the motion is that the Government are running two things together—putting in place emergency legislation that, at the same time, they claim is designed merely to provide clarity.
Moreover, the Home Secretary suggested yesterday that we should not worry too much because he was going to produce guidance for police officers. That is welcome; most of us find it quite difficult to understand new legislation, although police officers may be better at it than some. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is going to produce guidance, why does he not follow the normal procedures of the House? The Minister in charge of a Bill usually circulates guidance in draft form. If the Home Secretary really wants clarity and proper debate, where is his draft guidance to show us what he believes the legislation is intended to do? In the panic to get the Bill through, hon. Members are being given no chance to see the accompanying guidance.
This is a particularly ungenerous and stupid guillotine. There have been many guillotines to ensure that the House finishes at a given time, but they have allowed flexibility


within the time allotted. If we shorten the three-hour debate allowed on the guillotine motion, we gain no time to discuss the amendments. If we shorten the lengthy debating time allowed for Second Reading, we gain no time to consider amendments. The Leader of the House must realise that he should have introduced the guillotine motion allowing the House flexibility. Instead, we shall have very little time to debate the amendments.
The provisional selection of amendments appears to allow about 12 minutes per group. For proper scrutiny to take place, the Leader of the House should have offered us flexibility as between the time allowed for various debates.
The Home Secretary should tell us what he wants. Does he want emergency legislation, in which case he could accept new clause 1, which would stop the Act after four months, or does he want clarity? If it is the latter, let us go through the proper Committee procedures and replace the Act with something better—if necessary, at the end of that time. As it is, I cannot possibly support the guillotine motion.

Mr. David Wilshire: Hindsight is a wonderful debating tool. "We could have done this," is fair comment. "Why didn't we do that?" is equally fair comment. Still, we are where we are this afternoon, one day before a recess and a few days before Easter, with all its significance.
The House faces a stark choice. Either we stick with our usual procedures and defend the rights of the House as against those of the Executive, or we modify our procedures and take a slight chance with the wording of the Bill in order to minimise the risk of another atrocity.
If, by standing on our dignity this afternoon, the House fails to prevent just one more death of an innocent person, the nation will never forgive us.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This procedure underlines the weakness of the House of Commons and the system of patronage in it. If the House were independent of the Executive, and between 80 and 100 Conservative Members were not bound by patronage to vote for the Government, and if a similar number of Opposition Members were not similarly bound, the legislation would not be introduced in this manner. We would certainly not be discussing a three-hour guillotine motion followed by a truncated debate on a very serious issue.
The history of guillotine motions and rushed legislation is not a happy one. The original PTA was rushed through the House and has since been universally condemned as a human rights aberration and as denying many people the liberty to which they are entitled. Today, I suspect that we are repeating the mistakes of the past—

Mr. Stephen Day: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. I admire those who, like him, put civil liberties above all else, but what I find difficult to understand about his point of view is his apparent failure to recognise that the greatest civil liberty

is the freedom to walk the streets of a town with some certainty of not being blown to smithereens by the most ruthless, cold-blooded terrorist organisation that the world has ever seen.

Mr. Corbyn: Obviously, the liberty to walk the streets of a person's home place and to live a life of peace is central. What I am not convinced of is the idea that this legislation will achieve anything besides giving the police excessive powers to stop and search people at random. That will lead to a deterioration in relations between the police and the community. Furthermore, it will do nothing to solve the problems of terrorism, which are basically political in origin and therefore require a political solution. The sorry experience of Northern Ireland since 1969 has shown that we need something more than repressive legislation to solve the problem. I am convinced that rushing through legislation of this kind, denying Members the opportunity to debate it properly and denying the public the chance to comment on it before it is discussed, is a sign of contempt for the democratic process by which we arrived here in the first place.
Only after protests yesterday were amendments to the Bill allowed. I am grateful to all occupants of the Chair for allowing them, but the Government should never have put the House in this position in the first place.

Mr. Tony Banks: In respect of stop-and-search powers and the lacuna in section 13A of the PTA, can my hon. Friend tell me how many IRA terrorists whom he knows are black? Whom does he think will be stopped on the streets of London?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Gentleman may like to provide that information later this evening, but it is not appropriate to a guillotine motion debate.

Mr. Corbyn: Either on Second Reading or outside, I shall certainly discuss experience of the PTA with my hon. Friend.
We have been presented with a ludicrous choice of options at the conclusion of this debate. We have almost as much time on the guillotine motion as on the substance of the Bill. During the Committee, there are a possible 17 debates to be held, all on important matters. Those of us who tabled amendments certainly thought them through carefully, albeit quickly, last night. The idea that we can properly debate 17 issues in three hours, if necessary voting on all of them, is just not credible. Time will run out, and if the House divides on earlier amendments, we shall not reach the later ones, which will therefore receive no consideration at all.
The likelihood is that there will be a number of legal challenges to parts of the Bill. It will look pretty thin if the Home Secretary's defence in court some years hence is that Parliament did not even discuss the matter. Parliament will not have discussed the matter because the Home Secretary proposed a motion to deny the House the right to discuss it and to deny to hon. Members the right to table amendments.
When we have a difficulty or an emergency, it is up to the Home Secretary to convince people that the difficulty or emergency exists. I cannot speak for everybody, but many people in my constituency have suffered under the


prevention of terrorism Act in the past. Many people now recognise that the PTA is obsolete and unnecessary legislation and a denial of civil liberties. The Bill is a further denial of civil liberties and the House should not debate it today. The Bill should be laid on the Table so that we can discuss it properly after due consideration, and so that all interested parties can put forward their points of view.
If Parliament is to mean anything, it must be able to represent the views of the people who have sent us here. It is simply not possible to do that if we rush legislation through less than 24 hours after its existence has even been intimated in the media by the Home Secretary. I hope that the House will not agree to the guillotine motion and, therefore, will not enable debate to take place on the Bill today.

Mr. Max Madden: Like other Opposition Members, I have to confess that I remain totally confused and uncertain about why we are being asked to rush such important legislation through the House in less than 24 hours. If we listen to the Home Secretary and to the Leader of the House, we get two conflicting explanations. The Home Secretary said yesterday:
In recent weeks, I have discussed with senior police officers whether there were any additional powers that would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public. I have listened carefully to points that they made. The proposals that I am announcing today are designed to meet the real needs that they have identified. The additional powers will be accompanied by proper safeguards to ensure that they are used only where there is a real operational requirement. They are essentially practical and technical measures, but I believe that they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35.]
The Leader of the House this afternoon, however, chose to argue that we were living in unusual, if not unique, circumstances. I again failed to be convinced about those unusual, if not unique, circumstances. Sadly, over the past 25 years, we have experienced terrorist outrages, including serious incidents in London. We have also experienced ceasefires introduced by paramilitary groups and, sadly, those ceasefires have been withdrawn. We can all also agree that we have had Easter before. I therefore do not understand the unusual and unique circumstances that the Leader of the House, unlike the Home Secretary, has used to justify this emergency legislation.
The fact that we have a timetable motion—a guillotine—to drive the measure through the House in such a short space of time reveals the Government's basic lack of confidence in their case. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said earlier, if the Government were so convinced of the need for the legislation, why on earth could they not have the confidence to come to the House and convince us of the need without a guillotine motion? If nothing else, such an approach would have provided additional time for us to consider the measure. The guillotine motion is very revealing.
What is unusual and unique is that we have a peace process. It may be that the peace process is—sadly—losing momentum and unravelling, but what signal and what message would be sent out by the British House of

Commons this afternoon on the peace process by rushing through draconian emergency legislation as we are being invited to do?

Mr. Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that the peace process is in some difficulty at the moment. Will he also acknowledge that the reason for the difficulty is that the IRA decided unilaterally to break the ceasefire and has committed bomb outrages since?

Mr. Madden: That is absolutely right, but I am sad that my hon. Friend has been persuaded of the case for this emergency legislation to be rushed through the House. In the IRA, the people who will be aided and abetted by what we are being asked to do this afternoon will be the hawks, the hard men and the people who want to continue the terror campaign.
I remember many of those magnificent and impressive peace demonstrations that took place in London, Belfast and Dublin. I do not recall any of the placards saying "Please renew the PTA" or "Please extend the PTA". Not one of those demonstrations called for the Bill.
When the Home Secretary made his statement yesterday, I regret that he was not able to say a word about a matter that would be of major assistance to rebuilding momentum in the peace process, marginalising the hard men in the IRA and restoring the ceasefire. I refer to the repatriation of Irish prisoners to the Irish Republic. I hope that the Home Secretary will soon be able to make a decision about repatriating Patrick Kelly and others who have applied to be transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic. In my view, that would make a major contribution to rebuilding confidence in, and the momentum of, the peace process.
This is not a minor Bill. It consists of seven clauses and a schedule. It has not been produced in the last week. As my hon. Friends have suggested, it has been sitting in the Home Office for a considerable time. We must ask ourselves why the Government have chosen this moment to bring it out of the filing cabinet and invite the House of Commons to pass it. I am not convinced by the case that has been made. Why were we not given even a scintilla of information about the proposals by the Home Secretary when the PTA was renewed on 14 March? I would have thought that that would have been a way of seeking and obtaining the confidence of the House, but that is not this Home Secretary's way.
On that occasion, the Home Secretary spent most of his time gratuitously insulting my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for deciding officially that the Labour party would not oppose the renewal of the PTA but would abstain. Yesterday, however, it was all bouquets and praise for my hon. Friend. That change of attitude and behaviour in the Home Secretary came because he wanted something from the official Opposition, but not all of us in the Labour party will abstain on this measure tonight. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends will oppose the guillotine motion; will vote against Second Reading; will propose amendments, if we get the chance; and will vote against Third Reading.

Mr. Greg Pope: My hon. Friend has made an interesting point in suggesting that the Bill is being rushed through so quickly so as to gain party political


advantage for the Government. If that is the case and if that is what my hon. Friend believes, would it not be the utmost foolishness to aid and abet the Home Secretary by voting against the Bill?

Mr. Madden: I have always believed that people should act as they believe. I believe that the Bill is thoroughly bad and, therefore, I will vote against it as a Member of Parliament. My hon. Friend should understand that the Lobby does not belong to anyone. We vote as individual Members representing our constituents. We are asked to exercise our best judgment on their behalf in all matters, and that is what I intend to do on this occasion, as I have done on all previous occasions.
I regret that the Bill is being rushed through because it denies us all an opportunity to consult individuals and groups in Northern Ireland who for many years have had to put up with the search powers that are proposed in the Bill. When the Home Secretary winds up, will he say how many arrests, charges and convictions for terrorist-related crimes have resulted from the powers to search pedestrians that are available in Northern Ireland, which are similar to the ones in the Bill?
I gave the Home Secretary's office notice this morning of a question about information which I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to provide later in the debate. In his statement yesterday, he said:
It may reassure the House to know that the existing stop-and-search powers have been invoked only in the City of London and in the Metropolitan police areas in the aftermath of South Quay. In the City, the powers have applied for the full 28 days allowed on each occasion; in the much larger Metropolitan police district, they have been applied for periods of between seven and 10 days at a time. They remain in force at the moment, and rightly so."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 36.]
How many people have been arrested, charged and convicted of terrorist-related crimes as a result of those powers? How do the existing stop-and-search powers vary from those in the Bill? It is also important for the House and the public to be absolutely clear about what these powers imply.
If the Government had not subjected us to the panic measure of trying to push the Bill through the House, we would have been able to talk to people in Northern Ireland about their experiences of what happens and what has happened there over many years as a result of such powers. I remind the House that clause 1(2) states:
This section confers on any constable in uniform power to stop any pedestrian and search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism.
Subsection (3) states:
A constable may exercise his powers under this section whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of that kind.
Yesterday, the Home Secretary spoke about safeguards, and today, several of my hon. Friends asked about those. What are they? They do not appear in the Bill, but unless they are real, we can rightly claim that the legislation is a return to the hated sus law. Under the legislation, for a period of up to 28 days, large numbers of people, in a completely arbitrary area, can be stopped and searched without any explanation or justification. Because of the time factor, we have not been able to take evidence on

that issue. We have not been able to table amendments and we shall certainly not have adequate discussion of the matter.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, in politics generally and in Irish politics in particular, perception is all. I appeal not only to the Home Secretary but to the Government to recognise what will be the perception of the Bill that we are being asked to rush through. It will be exploited by the paramilitaries, whose propaganda machine will go into overdrive. They will say that the Brits have not learnt anything and will not learn anything, and that the only way forward is a return to terror and bombing.
Before the ceasefires came about, the Government promised that if they were introduced they would show generosity and imagination. It gives me no pleasure or satisfaction to say that, since the ceasefires were withdrawn a few months ago, and during the period that they were in operation from the summer of 1994, such generosity and imagination were singularly absent from all that the Government did. It was a question of delay and obstruction and of playing for time, and that played into the hands of those who were never in favour of the peace process or of democracy and who always argued that they could obtain their objectives by terror. The Government were materially at fault and I am disappointed to have witnessed that.
I am disappointed that, rather than being positive in relation to the peace process and Northern Ireland, we are again returning to the measures that have failed in the past. They are not relevant to today's problem. We need to show generosity and imagination to ensure that the peace process becomes reality. We must not return to this tired, arbitrary and possibly illegal legislation that has so failed us in the past.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: No one should believe that party advantage is sought from the guillotine motion. No one should work on the assumption that any hon. Member wants to speak in a way that would give any comfort to Sinn Fein, the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries. People outside want to be sure that, irrespective of our views on civil liberties or on other issues, every hon. Member wants to reduce the number of victims and to make sure that the relevant powers are available to those who bravely answer every blue-light call to areas in which there may be bombs or to those who intercept people who may be carrying firearms. They deserve support in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Bill contains critical issues. Most people will understand that most of the Bill's powers already exist in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland. I do not think that people will see an issue of principle. I represent part of the borough of Greenwich, which had the experience of the Woolwich pub bomb, and of bombs at Government house, at the entrance to the Royal Artillery barracks and at Court road in Eltham at the Army resettlement offices.
People in my constituency and, I am sure, in Tower Hamlets and in many other parts of the country, want to be sure that, in all parts of the House and across the political spectrum from left to right, people are willing to consider powers for the police on their merits.
Three matters limit what the IRA can do. The first is what it thinks will achieve its aims. It will not seriously believe that the additional and limited police powers will


affect its aims that much. IRA members know that the biggest pressure on them comes from Irish people who say in growing numbers and more and more often, whether in Dublin, Derry or London, "The violence is not being done in our name. End it now." As the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall) has said in the past and as all hon. Members say, there is a fundamental right to life.
The second limit on the IRA is its physical capability. The powers that are being sought will help to make it possible to intercept, or to require people to show that they are not carrying materials that may be of some use in a terrorist attack. That is a clear sign that the legislation is proportionate. The last limitation on what terrorists can do is what they think their supporters will tolerate. We must go on trying to encourage people to ask questions about why the violence returned. Some people suspect—I fear that I am one of them—that Sinn Fein-IRA have not yet decided that they seriously want talks. Every time that that becomes possible they seem to back away, taking action or setting preconditions of some kind.
That, however, is a subject for another debate. The question before us now is whether it is right for us, as a democratic House, to allow the time for debate of the Bill. There has been a reference to an attack on democracy. I think that the attacks on democracy happened when a bomb went off in the police canteen of Westminster Hall, when Airey Neave was blown up as he left the House of Commons car park just before the 1979 election and when a terrorist walked into Robert Bradford's constituency surgery and killed him.
We accept the same risks as the police, and the populations of Northern Ireland and the rest of Great Britain. We must not give anyone the impression that there is an excuse for a return to violence in allowing the time proposed by the Government. I hope that the Bill will be passed, that the amendments can be considered in the time available and that the powers will not need to be used—or, at least, will not need to be used very often. Throughout these islands—in Ireland, where Sinn Fein-IRA secure less than 3 per cent. of the vote; in the north of Ireland, where they secure a slightly larger proportion, but nowhere near the majority of the nationalist vote; and in Great Britain, where virtually no one gives Sinn Fein-IRA any comfort—we should be saying that we do not want to have to retain these powers for long. We believe that there should be a commitment on all sides to create the necessary conditions, come to terms with history, put right what is wrong and ensure that there is no return to violence.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Those of us who will oppose both the timetable motion and the Bill will undoubtedly be criticised for being "soft on terrorism".

Mr. Bowen Wells (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Hear, hear.

Mr. Barnes: Our record shows, however, that we have taken a strong stand against paramilitary activity from any source, and any form of violence and intimidation on the part of any group. Having opposed the actions of the IRA and Sinn Fein in particular, I am by no means flavour of

the month in "Republican News". Although there is clearly a distinction between my views and those of the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), we are united in the struggle against violence and intimidation. We are joint presidents of a group called New Dialogue, which espouses such principles. I cannot merely wish to give succour to IRA-Sinn Fein; I must have other reasons for arguing in this way.
Several justifications have been advanced for the timetable motion. First, it has been pointed out that the recess is about to begin, and that speedy action must therefore be taken. Secondly, it appears that some hon. Members are in possession of information that is not generally available, and that some terror—we know not what—is just round the corner. If we do not grant the powers, we shall be criticised for failing to act, but we also have a duty as democrats to study and understand the different positions involved, and to act only when we are convinced that there are strong reasons for acting.
The argument about the recess strikes me as nonsensical. We are in control of our own timetable and our own procedures. If it is so urgent for the Bill to be passed before Easter, we can still consider it fully tomorrow and on Thursday, if we delay the recess. Our other commitments, which supposedly mean that we must dash away, cannot be as important as the Bill is agreed to be by hon. Members on both sides of the House. According to the Government, it is so important that it must be rushed through; but others have argued that it is so important that the House must be able to examine and debate it in detail. I believe that the arguments for the timetable are wholly inadequate, and can easily be surmounted.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled four amendments. I am not sure what they will do if those amendments are carried. Are they still saying that they will oppose the timetable motion? I support the amendments, because if they were carried and the motion were subsequently carried as well, we would at least have an opportunity to do certain things—but they are only bits and pieces. As was suggested by the thrust of the speech of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), we should vote against the motion.
It has been said that we shall not have enough time to deal with the whole range of amendments. Moreover, in Committee we are entitled to debate clause stand part as well as amendments. I strongly object to the powers to stop and search pedestrians that are contained in clause 1. Other powers, such as the power enabling police as well as customs officers to search freight, strike me as entirely sensible, and I consider it right for us to discuss the possibilities. If it were possible for us to defeat the motion that clause 1 stand part of the Bill, we might be in a different position; but we need time for consideration. If a major section of the Bill were suddenly lost, we should have to give proper scrutiny to what remained. Pushing measures through so hastily constitutes a serious interference with parliamentary procedures and democracy.
Where has the Bill been? Has it been lying around in the files gathering dust? The Home Secretary suggested that it had not. That means that it was cobbled together at the last moment to deal with some crisis, which means that there is an even greater case for a proper, detailed investigation in the House: civil servants and others may


not have scrutinised it sufficiently during the drafting process. We need time, and we need to defeat the timetable motion.

Mr. Tony Banks: Legislation that is made on the hoof is invariably poor and defective. I assure the Home Secretary that I do not want to be blown up, either at Easter or at any other time; my constituents do not want to be blown up, and I am sure that he does not want to be blown up either. In fact, my constituents are probably more likely to be blown up than the Home Secretary, as was demonstrated by the cowardly attack that caused the explosion in the east end. Neither my constituents nor I can travel around in bullet-proof, chauffeur-driven limos.
When my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said that those who opposed the timetable motion or the Bill would be accused of being soft on terrorism, I heard a sedentary "Hear, hear" from one of the limo-occupiers on the Government Front Bench. That is a monstrous suggestion.
I do not want my civil liberties to be blown up either. I cannot agree to the speedy process because, frankly, it is leading the way to repenting at leisure. We are asked to put on the statute book legislation that is not temporary. We all know how the PTA came about. I would not mind what was going on if the Home Secretary told us that the measures would be implemented only for a set period and we could see an end. If measures needed to be passed urgently before Easter, I could understand the point made, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire that we do not have to go into recess. Easter does not start until Good Friday. I assume that that is the period that we are talking about. There is not a great deal of important business tabled for tomorrow, and Thursday we are in recess. Why can we not take more time?
Reasonable people will have to be convinced by the Bill. If the Home Secretary can make a good case, why does he have to sacrifice and undermine it by ramming the Bill through the House and the other place? That is why I am uneasy about it. I would like to hear more about the reasoning behind the Bill and have more time to consider it. When dealing with civil liberties, we should not be so ready to be stampeded. There is a whiff of panic in the air, and that gets me. I always feel that the terrorists are winning when we turn ourselves inside out, brush aside all our normal procedures, ram things through, override arguments and deride people who have a contrary point of view. We imprison ourselves, demean our institution, and the terrorist wins when we do such things in the Houses of Parliament.
I cannot agree with the motion. I want far more safeguards, and I want to hear more and have the chance to have a go at the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary said yesterday that the powers of the police would be extended under section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989
to enable them to stop and search pedestrians",
and he added:
The police are fully aware that this new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35-6.]
I say hear, hear to that.
I repeat that I want to know whether the power will be monitored. Although I understand that it will, will it be monitored according to skin colour? I know what will happen in the east end where I live: Afro-Caribbeans and Asians will be stopped. As far as I am aware, the IRA does not have any people of Afro-Caribbean or Asian descent in its ranks. I do not know that, but I am probably on certain ground in suggesting it, and I want to know whether such safeguards will be written into the Bill. We should be given time to contemplate such matters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire said, the timetable motion is to suit our convenience. Why can we not talk about the Bill on Thursday? If the measures are that important, surely we must give them more consideration; then people would be convinced not only that we were taking the matter seriously but that we were taking our own liberties and rights in the House seriously. I am afraid that, in the circumstances, I shall oppose the guillotine motion and support the Liberal Democrats in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Clive Soley: All rushed legislation is bad, and rushed legislation on terrorism is particularly bad because, once again, it allows the terrorist to set the political agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) made that point very effectively.
As I understand it, the Leader of the House is asking today—it has been talked about over the past day or two—for very specific powers as an addendum to the prevention of terrorism Act. I accept that the Bill is not part of the PTA, with its exclusion orders and its tendency to round people up, question them and then release them without charge. We should not confuse the two, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to make that point.
I say to the Leader of the House that the case for the Bill and the motion is quite simple and bald. He is telling the House, and through the House the nation, that the Government have judged that there is a very real threat over the next couple of weeks, and that that threat arises from the ability to carry bombs more easily than before. I cannot help but believe that that judgment arises very understandably from the fear that something that happened on one of the London buses some weeks ago will be repeated. That is a very real and understandable fear, and if the Government presented their case that way, there would be greater understanding of their position.
When the Home Secretary tries to rush such legislation through, he has to have the support and, as it were, the confidence of the House. I must be critical, and I shall measure my words as best I can. I do not think that the Home Secretary has done that well over recent years. I have said on many occasions that I think that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have acted in relation to Northern Ireland with considerable statesmanship. I have to say that that statesmanship feeling is lacking in the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has made the point on many occasions—and he is right—about the transfer of prisoners. It would not be appropriate to go down that road now, but I shall note, and the House will note, that after the hunger strike the previous Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher,


introduced in Northern Ireland changes in the prison service that met many of the hunger strikers' demands. That was done to end hunger strikes.
When the Home Secretary seeks the confidence of the House, he must acknowledge that, fairly or unfairly—perhaps I am being unfair—he is seen as being a Home Secretary who, in the Cabinet, has dragged his feet on the peace process. That may be unfair, but he is clearly perceived as having done that, and at times he almost boasts of it in a macho way. Of course people think of the Tory party's Maples memorandum and the Government's attempt to try to divide the Labour party. Perception is not reality, but the Home Secretary must know that in politics, to coin a phrase, perception is nine tenths of reality. The Home Secretary is not perceived as someone who carries confidence as either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland would have done if they had asked the House for such powers.
I think that the Home Secretary could carry the House with him. The Bill would not be a bad part of what I consider to be generally a bad Act. The Bill is not a renewal of the sus law, and if I get the opportunity to say that later, I shall do so. The safeguards in clause 1 are clear in terms of time and place, and only a senior officer can permit certain things to happen. They are not ideal or what I would want, but if the Government judge that there is a danger in the coming weeks and that the police need the powers for that purpose, we can listen to them.
I say to the Home Secretary, please, if he wants such confidence from the House of Commons and if we are to win the battle, for all the reasons that a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out about the dangers of rushing in to meet a terrorist threat—which pleases the terrorists, because they see the British people rushing around abandoning their democratic procedures to get legislation through to deal with the problem that they have created—we have to be rather more sophisticated than we are being at times at present.
I also say to the Home Secretary that I am willing to start again after today. I have made my points today and I think that they are very important. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman takes them on board and that in future he will have no difficulty in carrying the House if he feels that the police need specific powers to deal with a specific crisis for a period.

Mr. Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said earlier, and as I made clear in the House yesterday, Parliament has always, and rightly, been very reluctant to allow its normal time scales and procedures to be bypassed. Hasty legislation all too often turns out to be ill drafted and unclear. That is why the House has been jealous in guarding its procedures, which ensure due consideration of any measure. The procedures include a strong convention that two clear weekends should elapse between the tabling of a Bill and its Second Reading, and that there should also be a period for reflection between Second Reading, detailed consideration in Committee, Report and Third Reading.
Those procedures are important in respect of any Bill, however trivial. They are doubly important in respect of Bills that affect an individual's liberty and the public's safety. We all acknowledge, as the right hon. Member for

Honiton (Sir P. Emery) said earlier, that the procedures should be foreshortened only in the most exceptional circumstances.
Last Thursday, the Home Secretary asked to see me to seek the official Opposition's co-operation in agreeing the Bill and in getting it through the House today on a guillotine. He gave me the reasons why he had been persuaded of its necessity and why, in his view, it was necessary to pass all its stages by Easter. After our discussion, I told him that I would need to consult my colleagues and that we would let him have our decision by Monday. In the time available, my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and I consulted as many colleagues—in the shadow Cabinet and outside—as we could. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and I sought and received additional security briefings on Monday morning. We then came to the collective view that, although of course we were concerned at the short notice that we had been given, the proposed Bill was a responsible and appropriate reaction to the threat of which we had been made aware.
I told the Home Secretary this, and I also sought from him—and later gained—safeguards additional to those in the draft Bill. We can discuss these safeguards further on Second Reading and in Committee, and we will be able later today to discuss in detail the contents of the Bill. But in coming to a conclusion about the necessity for the guillotine, my colleagues and I examined most closely the powers in the Bill—particularly those in clause 1. We examined how far clause 1 extended the existing section 13A, and we looked at the attitude that we had adopted—as well as the Government—when clause 13A was debated in the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill. We discussed the reasons for the extension and, above all, why it was needed to introduce the extension, along with the other powers, with such speed.
I shall deal with the issues in turn as they affected our judgment on whether the guillotine was necessary. First, we looked at how far new section 13B, in clause 1, would extend the current powers under section 13A. The proposed new section will put the searches of pedestrians on the same basis as searches of vehicle occupants. I must tell my hon. Friends that there are more safeguards for pedestrians than there are for vehicle occupants. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) that outer body searches are all that are allowed, and not strip searches.
The power is more circumscribed than that for vehicle occupants, and includes a requirement that if a chief police officer requires the power for more than 48 hours, he must get the approval of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State's approval can last initially for a further 26 days. No prosecution of any offence arising under the powers can take place without the permission of the Director of Public Prosecutions and, in addition, we have secured safeguards on monitoring. A regular report on the exercise of the powers will also be made to Parliament.

Mr. Madden: What is the difference between the stop-and-search powers that have been in operation in the past month in the City and the Metropolitan police area


and those proposed in the Bill? How many people have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related crimes as a result of such searches in the past month?

Mr. Straw: I cannot answer the second question because, with great respect, I am only the shadow Home Secretary and not the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tony Banks: It's only a matter of time, Jack.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who made that sedentary intervention from the Back Benches with his usual good humour.
I must leave the second question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) for the Secretary of State to answer. On his first question, the police currently have the general power to stop and search people with reasonable cause, but they must have reasonable cause before they can effect a stop and search—they cannot develop the reasonable cause while the search is taking place. In addition, the police have the power—under what is now section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, following the 1994 addition—to stop and search vehicles, what is in vehicles and what is in articles carried in vehicles. They can then require the occupants—both passengers and driver—to get out of the vehicle, and they can then carry out body searches of those occupants. At the moment, the police can search pedestrians, but only their bags—they cannot search their outer garments, hats or shoes. Proposed section 13B provides for the search of outer garments, hats and shoes of a pedestrian—a limited power, if my hon. Friend thinks about it.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: In my hon. Friend's discussions with the Home Secretary, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, where Scotland is concerned, mentions of "the Secretary of State" in the Bill refer to the Secretary of State for Scotland and not the Home Secretary?

Mr. Straw: I did not discuss that matter with the Secretary of State but, for these purposes, "Secretary of State" means the Home Secretary in England and Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland.
I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West that—as far as I am aware—the current legislation and the Bill contain no power in respect of cyclists. But I note that one of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends is to extend the stop-and-search powers to cover cyclists. I find that slightly surprising, but no doubt the reason will emerge during our discussions.

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the purposes of that amendment was to make sure that the Government got the Bill right? Vehicles are referred to in the Bill, but it is not certain whether that covers cycles. If it does not, it illustrates the way in which one does not always get things right by rushing through legislation. Could I press my hon. Friend on one of the key issues? Does the new power conform to the European convention on human rights? As I understand it, a suspicion is needed to justify a search under the terms of the convention.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's explanation about the additional powers to stop cyclists,

and we will look at the amendment with interest. He also asked whether the Bill is consistent with the convention that we signed in the early 1950s on human rights in Europe. I assume that it is consistent, because the powers in respect of section 13A have been on the statute book for nearly two years, and I do not think that they have been subject to challenge. In the eyes of the convention, there cannot be any distinction between carrying out an outer body search on an occupant of a vehicle and carrying out an outer body search on a pedestrian.
When the draft Bill was given to us at the end of last week and we had to decide whether it was reasonable to agree to the timetable, one of our main concerns was whether any of the powers contained in clause 1 could conceivably be regarded as a reintroduction of the old sus law. This is a little-known fact, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I used to be one of the world's experts on the sus law. I earned much of my income as a very junior member of the Bar by defending a number of innocent people and—I must say—a number whom I subsequently found out were certainly not innocent against charges of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence contrary to section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
I must tell my hon. Friends that there is no way in which these powers—limited and circumscribed as they are—could conceivably be compared to sus. Let me explain why. Under the 1824 Act, sus created an offence of simply being a suspected person—a person or a suspected thief was the phrase used—loitering with intent to commit an indictable offence. As the police used to say, feeling one car door was not enough, but feeling two was enough to secure a conviction. Moreover, a person's previous convictions were adducible in evidence by the prosecution to prove the offence of intent, even though the arresting officer had not known of those previous convictions when he made the arrest.
The law was a wonderful piece of machinery available to the police basically to pick up anybody whom they did not terribly like. This caused hyge concern. I was concerned about it when I was defending many of my clients—whether they turned out to be innocent or not. I managed to secure the acquittal of most of them. But the offence caused great concern and anxiety, especially in the black community. It was entirely right that in 1981, following various reports into the sus law, including a report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the House abolished sus and has had nothing to do with it since. There is no way in which the power under section 13A or the power under section 13B could conceivably be compared with sus.

Mr. McNamara: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend; I am sorry, I should say my hon. Friend. He will shortly be my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will he?

Mr. McNamara: Yes, because we shall win the next election.
The point at issue is this. There will be a designated area and, within that area, a constable in uniform may stop any pedestrian and search him. If a pedestrian refuses to be stopped and searched, he will have committed an


offence. If that person is stopped and refuses to do what the policeman says, it will be an offence per se. That is the concern.

Mr. Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, and I will say more in a moment about the important balance between civil liberties and public safety.
First, the search that would be permitted under section 13B would be less onerous than the search that the House requires of any visitor every day of the week. That is a matter of fact. Secondly, if one has a power, one has to have some means of enforcing it. One cannot just say, "By the way, we would like people to submit to searches, but people who happen to be carrying bombs may be let off." Such people could say, "Sorry, officer, we do not like this." There has to be some means of enforcement and that has to be by way of an offence. In this case, it will be an offence at level 5. Moreover, no one can be prosecuted for this offence except with the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is pushing the point about a parallel with sus. The sus laws existed in the days before the Crown Prosecution Service and did not require the approval of the Director of Public Prosecutions or even of the chief solicitor for the area. The station inspector laid the charge and would be up the steps to the court the next morning. The chances were that a person would not be represented, not even by someone of my lowly status, as it was then, and would almost certainly be convicted, especially if the stipendiary knew who the person was. That was one of the major differences, and the many safeguards under the Bill make the provision wholly different from the sus law.
The second issue in deciding whether we would support the guillotine motion was our reaction to the original powers contained in section 13A. As some of my hon. Friends have said, when the clause was debated in Committee in February 1994, we probed the matter, as we had a duty to do, but it was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), without any opposition from any member of my party or of any other party, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, that we supported the inclusion of what became section 13A in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act.
The third issue we had to weigh up was why the extension of powers was needed now. In making our judgment, we are obviously in the hands of those on whom we impose heavy responsibilities for the safety of the public—the police and the security forces. But we should not substitute their judgment for ours. Instead, we have to make our own judgments on the basis of the best evidence we are given. My hon. Friends and I listened to the advice offered by those concerned and we formed a judgment that we should accept that advice.
Another issue at which we looked in making a judgment on whether we should accept the guillotine motion was what happened on the only previous parallel occasion—the introduction of the initial prevention of terrorism Bill in November 1974. The Bill passed through all its stages in 17 hours. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who raised the issue, that it is true that there was no guillotine

motion on that day. However, there was—I have the debate here—an agreed business motion which required every stage of the Bill to be completed without the House adjourning. Moreover, my hon. Friend may care to look at the length of the 1974 Bill and the amount of time that was taken. If he looks at the length of this Bill and the total time available now, he may note that there is marginally more time available, clause for clause, on this Bill. The powers in this Bill are far less onerous than the powers in the principal Bill in 1974.

Mr. Beith: Bearing in mind the precedent of 1974, what is to stop us following that procedure and not adjourning the House until we have given proper consideration to the Bill? Even if the hon. Gentleman cannot bring himself to agree to that, why is he resisting the amendment, under which it is proposed that we should have another three hours so that the House can have sufficient time to deal with the detailed points he mentioned?

Mr. Straw: I have read the whole of the 1974 debate and I have read the right hon. Gentleman's contribution, in which he fully supported the prevention of terrorism Bill. I think that he may have been slightly confused about what I said from a sedentary position during his speech. He said that there was a difference about something and I said that I had noticed that there was a difference between a principle and a Liberal. I merely put that on the record.
Whether to deal with this Bill by a guillotine motion or by an agreed business motion was a matter for the Leader of the House. However, I think that he took account of the fact that Easter was approaching and felt that this was an easier and tidier way in which to secure the business here and in the other place. It is a matter of fact that in November 1974, no holiday was pending, unlike now.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the usual channels were being used, why did the hon. Gentleman not seek the agreement of the Leader of the House by saying that the Opposition would support the Bill provided there could be agreement among all the parties on a business motion that gave adequate time—even if it was necessary to sit through the night—to the satisfaction of both sides?

Mr. Straw: Discussion in these situations are usually led by the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State, with each of the parties. At no stage, as I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, have the Liberal Democrats come to us to seek discussions. I know that we made approaches to them. Other things could have been agreed, but we, in the circumstances, do not have a complaint about the guillotine motion. I fully understand that the Liberal Democrats do; we have to take a different view.
I now come to the central issue of our debate, which is the balance between concern for individual liberty and the safety of the public, a matter that has been raised by many of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I found it interesting to read the debate in November 1974 on the prevention of terrorism Bill. On any basis, that Bill introduced far more serious and extensive powers than this Bill, including exclusion orders and many other powers that were


described, at the time and subsequently, as draconian. Achieving the balance between civil liberties and public safety is difficult. However, I was particularly struck by the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North in the debate on 28 November 1974.
In fully supporting the prevention of terrorism Bill on that occasion, my hon. Friend said that
we have a right to protect the lives of our constituents … We must therefore look for advice to the police, the people to whom we give the power and duty to protect us. We must consider what we can legitimately give them in extra powers so that they can protect us. But we must not forget that those powers are such that normally we would not like to bestow them.
My hon. Friend raised yesterday the issue of police powers. In 1974, he went on to say:
The police have given their advice"—
to the then Home Secretary—
and my right hon. Friend has responded to it. In so doing, what he has done is the least he could do.
Dealing with the difficult issue of the balance between civil liberties and public safety, my hon. Friend said:
It would be most sad, however, if we were to worry now too much about the curtailment of liberties and later to have upon our consciences the deaths of our fellow citizens."—[Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699-700.]
My hon. Friend got the balance there exactly right.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is right about what I said in those circumstances. At that time, I thought that I was doing the right thing. Applying the same criteria that he has adumbrated, I would now reject what was being done. Had I known then what I know now, I would not have voted for that Bill, given its effects on our legal system and the injustices that it has brought.

Mr. Straw: I understand my hon. Friend's point and I will come to it later, but we have to judge what will happen in future. It would be easy to run a country on the basis of hindsight. We must judge what may happen and balance difficult issues.
Some of my hon. Friends may argue that the threat in 1974 was greater than it is now—but how do we know? We know for certain that the Canary wharf bomb could have easily killed or maimed many more people than were killed or injured in Birmingham in 1974. We know that the Aldwych bomb could have killed—and was almost certainly intended to kill—many more people than the terrorist who ended up being killed. We also know, as the Home Secretary told the House yesterday, that the Provisional IRA is using public transport and secreting devices in overcoats, partly to evade the searches that can be conducted under existing prevention of terrorism Act powers. Our best estimate is that it could all happen again—and shortly. In that situation, I believe that we are right to be cautious, take the powers and accept the guillotine.
Of course, all my colleagues and I would have preferred much more time than has been allowed. However, in this situation, and on the information with which we were confronted, we believe that the Bill's response is proportionate to the threat and that the guillotine, although it is to be regretted, is also acceptable.
Like too many hon. Members, I have witnessed the terrible carnage, death and injury that terrorist outrages can cause. We have to balance our rightful concern for the liberty of the subject with the need to protect the public. No civil rights can be exercised from the graveyard and few can be exercised from a hospital bed. In the long run, the only way to end the prospect of terrorism from within the British Isles is by the process of negotiations to which we have given our full support. While the IRA maintains its campaign of violence, we must take appropriate and responsible measures to reduce its effects, as far as that is possible. For those reasons, we shall not stand in the way of the timetable motion and do not accept the amendment moved by the Liberal Democrats.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I regret that my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary spoke at great length without explaining why the Opposition support a guillotine which means that the Bill will go through all its stages in one day. Many of us would accept his judgment, as I do, that he has been given information emphasising the need for urgent action. However, he did not explain why we have to have a truncated parliamentary procedure which does not allow us to examine and probe the Executive as to what is intended. I regret that fact, and I regret having to say it because no doubt the Whips will be noting, "unhelpful intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock". I want to be clear that on this one issue I am unhappy because I should have thought that Her Majesty's Opposition would at least have said that we needed two days to deal with the Bill.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend spoke at length, but I will give way to him.

Mr. Straw: I wish just to clarify my hon. Friend's point, with which I tried to deal in my speech. One thing that we considered carefully was the precedent set by the last Labour Government—not a Tory Government, but a Labour Government—in respect of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill in 1974. On that precedent, the simple arithmetic shows that, clause for clause, more time is being allowed for this Bill than was allowed for that one, even though this one's powers are, on any analysis, less extensive than those proposed in the 1974 Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and we have to start to reassert the capacity of Back-Bench Members to examine proposals. That is our duty. I do not care what happened under past Labour Governments. People may wish to consider what will happen under the next Labour Government, because some of us are not going to be mere sheep.
This procedure is wholly inadequate. In August 1914 and September 1939 there was need for urgent legislation, but more time was made available to examine it than has been given to this. Those were more serious situations than this, though I accept what the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have said about their having information which underlines the need for urgency.


My argument with them is that the action being taken is too urgent. It is not a price worth paying that we should curtail the proper examination of legislation.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mackinlay: No, I will not give way.
Not all the police representative bodies have been consulted. The Ministry of Defence Police Federation wrote to the Home Secretary this morning saying that it had not been consulted. I regret that. Will the Home Secretary say whether the chief police officers of all forces have been consulted? I assume that the request to which he referred came from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but other chief police officers not in ACPO should have been consulted as well.
Documents were not available for hon. Members fully to examine the legislation in time. No one could suggest that the majority of hon. Members could have had the opportunity to read the Bill and consult the obvious people with whom they would have liked to discuss it, such as members of the police forces, the police federations and political and civil liberties groups. We have not had time to understand the legislation. If anyone here were to pretend that there has been time, I would dispute it.

Mr. Allason: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to consult someone, he should consult two of my constituents who are still in hospital after the Aldwych bombing. Understandably, they feel strongly, as do my constituents who know those victims, that anything that can be done to avoid a repetition must be worth while.

Mr. Mackinlay: If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place earlier, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) say that things could be misunderstood. I remind him that this motion is not the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself, he may discover my attitude to the Bill. This is a timetable motion. Surely he can understand that distinction.
People may misunderstand what we are discussing and there are some who would deliberately mislead them. I am arguing that the House should give proper consideration to legislation rather than bouncing it through ill considered. I pay tribute to the Clerk's Department, which could not cope with all the amendments. That is no criticism of the Clerk's Department. The amendments were not available in draft at the Vote Office until about 1 pm today. It is a charade to suggest that we have been able to study the documents and give them adequate consideration.
My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary referred to the Committee stage. As he knows, there is not going to be a proper Committee stage. We shall be able to vote on Government amendments, but not on any which might have been tabled by other hon. Members. That is wrong. It shows how this place is run by the Executive, regardless of the views of Back Benchers, who might have been able to improve the legislation. That would have been in the interests of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason). I ask him to consider that. It is

wrong to assume that the Home Secretary has all the wisdom in this matter. If we are to earn our money, we should be able to improve the legislation.
I also believe that the Bill is badly drafted. May I also suggest, before Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Bill has some hybridity? I will explain why I think that, and I should be grateful if the possibility could be considered in advance of Second Reading. It is because on the face of it, the Bill does not provide for the Ministry of Defence police, the Atomic Energy Authority police, the British Transport police, the Royal Parks constabulary and other such bodies.
I have tabled amendments, but they will not be voted upon because there will not be time. In fairness, however, I must add that the Home Secretary was courteous enough to have a word with me on the subject earlier today. I took that seriously, and appreciated it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman assured me that there was no need for an amendment relating to those other police forces because the reference to "police" on the face of the Bill covered them adequately. If that is so, however—if the judgment of the hon. Member for Thurrock is wrong and that of the Home Secretary is correct—other bodies, such as the privatised police forces, the Northern Ireland airports police and the port of Tilbury police, are also covered as, indeed, are the Epping Forest keepers and the Royal Botanical Parks police. I do not believe that Parliament intends such forces to be included.
With regard to hybridity, if we are to incorporate under the Bill the jurisdiction of privatised police forces, as the Home Secretary argues, I draw the attention of the House to "Erskine May", which says that
a public bill which affects a particular private interest in a manner different from the private interest of other persons or bodies of the same category or class
is hybrid. Clearly, if the information that the Home Secretary supplied to me is correct, the Bill will extend powers to private forces, which in my view raises the question of hybridity.
If there is time, I shall wish to press to a Division my amendment to the guillotine motion. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has rightly sought to extend the period of debate on the Bill, and my amendment would ensure that we would at least have the right to vote on amendments tabled by Back Benchers. It would not, alas, provide for the various amendments to be discussed, but we would at least have the opportunity to vote on them. I venture to suggest that some of them would improve the Bill and add to its quality—to the satisfaction of the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay.
Surely it is worth spending a few more hours in the Chamber to demonstrate that we have at least been able to deliberate on the Bill and to consider it in full measure.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman add one more reason to his litany of good reasons why there is no justification for taking all the stages of the Bill in one day? The objectives sought by the constituents of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) could be perfectly well served if we spread our work over two days, or overnight. If amendments are tabled, as they can be, at any time before the end of Second Reading, which will be some hours from now, people will have absolutely no chance to take them away and check objectively whether they are


valid or invalid, justified or unjustified, and whether advice has been taken. That exactly replicates the worst sort of practice, in which legislation is steamrollered through by Government majority without any chance of proper parliamentary scrutiny of amendments put forward by either side of the House to any part of the Bill.

Mr. Mackinlay: I agree. There was a recent precedent, when we were discussing some of the representations on railway privatisation. Others as well as myself raised the subject of the jurisdiction of the British Transport police. I was scoffed at by those on the Treasury Bench, and there was not a great deal of interest in other quarters either. None the less, amending legislation was subsequently needed; I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that as a matter of fact. The powers of the British Transport police had been overlooked by the civil servants, and Ministers had decided to listen to the civil servants rather than to the hon. Member for Thurrock. Extra legislation was needed. The thing was botched; that is a matter of fact.
We are in real danger of doing a disservice to the public, and to the people who have had their liberties grossly infringed by becoming the victims of bombings, if we do not give the legislation proper consideration. That sets a dangerous precedent, so I implore hon. Members to pause and reflect on the fact that we should be seen to sacrifice a few more hours of time in this place, as is our duty, to demonstrate that we have been able to probe and to understand the points that the Home Secretary makes on Second Reading.
As would happen in Committee on any other Bill, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to explain the detail of the legislation. That is not unreasonable. There might then be concord and agreement. But I am not prepared to go along with parliamentary choreography between the occupants of the two Front Benches simply to get the Bill through. It is wrong in principle, and it is extremely unhealthy for democracy.
If such a thing ever happens again—I suspect that in the life of this Parliament other ideas will be conjured up and attempts made to bounce them through quickly—we should ensure that as well as Privy Councillors and Front-Bench Members being consulted, Back-Bench Members and Members from minority parties should be able to table their considered amendments and to feel that they have had their day in court—in the high court of Parliament—to explain and defend their position, or to be satisfied on behalf of their constituents.
I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment moved by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and that if there is time—which there probably will not be—we shall be able to extend the facility of being allowed to vote on amendments to the Bill by supporting the amendment that I hope to move later to the timetable motion.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not for the first time, my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) has raised some important and pertinent matters. I hope that they will not be allowed to drift into the sand, which is always a danger in this place. As regards hybridity, which my hon. Friend

mentioned, will it be possible for the Clerks to offer advice to Madam Speaker and for her, at an appropriate stage in our proceedings, to offer the House her advice on whether my hon. Friend's views are correct? It is important that we have Madam Speaker's advice, rather than relying on the Executive, because it is the Executive who may have got us into this mess in the first place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Unfortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had to leave the Chamber during the debate, and when I came back at about 4 o'clock I did not intend to speak. However, I now want to lay down one or two markers. I listened to the explanation by the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), about the distinction between the original legislation involving the vagrancy Acts and—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman was putting a point of order supplementary to that raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). Before he continues, I must ask him whether that was correct.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: No, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not speaking on that particular point.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Then I must deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West. My understanding is that all Bills are scrutinised for hybridity before they appear in this place. I am sure that in the light of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), further scrutiny will be given, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any difficulty.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have every sympathy with the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock, because I was one of the Members involved last night in trying to table amendments, and I saw the great pressures to which the Table Office was subjected by the way in which the Bill and the other amendments became available at such short notice.
I ask you again, Madam Deputy Speaker, if the matter could be fully investigated, because I have considerable doubts about whether the Clerks had a proper opportunity to consider any aspect of the Bill, let alone its hybridity. I would be grateful if you could confirm that the Clerks will offer their considered advice to Madam Speaker, and that she in turn will offer her advice to the House, in a ruling at an appropriate stage of our proceedings, so that we can all be satisfied as to whether the Bill has been properly and fully considered with a view to hybridity, and whether it is proper to proceed on the basis on which we are being invited to proceed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already made the point that no doubt, in the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Thurrock, scrutiny will again be given. I do not think that we can take the matter further at this point.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I drew attention to the fact there could potentially be 17 debates


in two hours. We inadvertently misled the House, because the latest selection of amendments shows that there are 23 separate issues to be decided in under two hours. If Divisions are to be called on more than four of those issues, it will clearly be impossible to debate all those issues. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to examine the situation once again, as it is now bordering on the farcical. We are being asked to debate issues, and there is clearly not enough time to do so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. The whole purpose of a debate on the timetable is to raise such matters.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) draw a distinction, and I think that what he said sounded very convincing. I am not a rebel—in the sense that, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), I do not suggest that I shall be marching through the Lobbies under a Labour Government in any way other than the way the Whips want, in normal circumstances—

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Sign here.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My view has always been very simple: when we want to argue such matters, we argue them out in the parliamentary Labour party or privately with Ministers. Sometimes one puts the boot in privately as well, because that is how to sort out issues of major controversy. My view is that, whenever possible, one should seek to support one's Government.
I find what is happening tonight very worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) was elected as a Member of Parliament at the same time as I was, in 1979. He can remember incidents over the years which have concerned us, particularly in civil liberties debates. The problem is that a Labour Member's mailbag is not just about housing, Inland Revenue, social security and third-world cases—it is often littered with letters from civil libertarian lobbies, because members of such lobbies always come to Labour Members to put the case for civil libertarian positions.

Mr. Simon Hughes: That is not quite true.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It may be that they go to Liberal Members as well, but they always come to Labour Members. My party has a very proud record on civil libertarian positions, and what we are doing today will not convince the civil libertarian lobby outside the House. They will wonder what Labour was doing.

Mr. Straw: I, too, receive such letters, and I reply to them as best I can. If my hon. Friend wants one paragraph to use in replies to his constituents, I offer him this one. Again it comes from the speech made on 28 November 1974 by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—in support of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974—and exactly picks up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He said:

I believe that we have a prime duty to defend the liberties of our constituents, but a Bill of Rights and a whole volume of liberties are of little value to someone who is 6 feet beneath the ground or someone whose body has been dismembered by a bomb."—, [Official Report, 28 November 1974; Vol. 882, c. 699.]
That seems to express exactly the dilemma that we face. Of course we are concerned about civil liberties, but we are also concerned about the safety of the public.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would have no trouble at all in including that paragraph in every response that I send to my constituents. The question is simply whether this Bill should go through today. This is not a case in which we are trying to delay the legislation or in which many of us disagree fundamentally with the legislation: we simply believe that there is a lack of opportunity to scrutinise it fully.
Scrutiny is not merely for the benefit of hon. Members; it is also for the benefit of people who study Hansard. There will no doubt be students in the future who want to consider what happened in the House of Commons when this Bill was passed, particularly if the Bill has a wider impact and affects groups other than those that the Home Secretary has in mind. People in the future might say that it was wrong for us simply to treat this legislation in an abbreviated procedural form because in doing so we denied the wider population the right to know what was in hon. Members' minds when they considered it.
If it is true that there are 20-odd amendments—

Mr. Tony Banks: There are 23 amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: If there are 23 amendments which should have been considered, surely the House could have spent 24 hours considering them. I say that as someone who is, in principle, supportive of what is going through the House. I am not opposed to what Labour Front Benchers are doing, but I am worried that we shall stand accused at some future stage of not meeting the expectations of a civil libertarian lobby outside the House, which—if I may put it bluntly—expects a little more of my hon. Friends.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) for their support for this timetable motion. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) and for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for saying that they will not stand in the way of the Bill and for their confirmation that they will not vote against the timetable motion.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and some other Opposition Members suggested that we should proceed at a slower pace, and he indicated why he would oppose the motion. I accept that he would like more time to consider the Bill's provisions, but there is an urgent need for them.
In his remarks, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed managed both to minimise and to exaggerate the nature of the provisions. He minimised them when he said that they are simply technical provisions and that the police already carry out the activities provided for by the


Bill. There may be some argument about that in relation to the two provisions for which there are currently common law powers, but those common law powers—the powers to impose a cordon and to impose parking restrictions—are uncertain. The point does not apply to this legislation because it does not apply to the other three extra powers contained in the Bill.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman for Berwick-upon-Tweed was exaggerating the proposals' significance when he embarked on his comparison between them and the original Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill of 1974. I endorse the analysis made by the hon. Member for Blackburn on the size of that Bill as compared to the size of this Bill and his conclusion that such an analysis would reveal that more time was available for consideration of the provisions of this Bill than there was for that Bill.
There is, however, a further point that is of infinitely greater importance. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill of 1974 was genuinely breaking new ground and really did involve new matters of principle that had not previously been considered by the House. It was put before the House as a new response to an unprecedented threat, and the House had to consider it on that basis. These powers do not fall into anything like that category and there is no new question of principle raised by this Bill.
If we examine the power that has given rise to the greatest controversy— the power to stop and search pedestrians—it is to fill a lacuna in the law whereby the police have the power, when a senior police officer has designated a particular area for a particular time, to stop and search the occupant of a vehicle or to stop a pedestrian and to search his bag, but whereby they do not have the power to search a pedestrian's jacket pocket. As we all know, it is extremely easy to fit inside that jacket pocket a device that may be small but whose effect is immensely potent and could cause enormous damage. I have said that the power to search fills a lacuna, so I believe that it is impossible for any hon. Member in any part of the House to suggest that any real question of principle is involved in the provision of that power, which represents a modest extension.

Mr. Tony Banks: My question might be more appropriate for Second Reading, but, in the event of that power being exercised and statistics being kept, can the Home Secretary tell me whether they will be kept on the basis of ethnic origin? Will we know the skin colour of the person who has been stopped?

Mr. Howard: All the monitoring provisions that currently apply under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 will apply under the Bill. Monitoring, including ethnic monitoring, will take place, so I believe that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are wholly met.

Dr. Godman: I have a number of concerns about the Bill, one of which is that, at first glance, I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has offered us an incorrect interpretation of the role of the procurator fiscal in criminal investigations and proceedings. That needs to be looked at again.

Mr. Howard: I confess that I venture into Scottish law with a good deal of trepidation. If the hon. Gentleman would care to provide us with more detail of his concerns, outside the Chamber if he likes, about the role of the procurator fiscal, I assure him that we will certainly look into the matter.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: My right hon. and learned Friend has stressed that no new principle is involved in clause 1 as it relates to section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Does he also agree that the substance of clause 1 can be found in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 and that therefore its basic principle has been debated by the House every year since the 1991 Act came into being? That confirms my right hon. and learned Friend's argument that clause 1 will implement nothing new in principle.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right. All the powers, save one, in the Bill have been in existence in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, so they are certainly not new in any sense to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary is a lawyer and he knows as well as I do that one of the most controversial matters ever to come before the courts has been the detailed legislation on stop and search and related powers. They have been the subject of a great legal argument, much controversy and many legal appeals. Instead of spending six hours in total debating a Bill of several clauses, many of which contain many subsections, and many groups of amendments, what is the argument to stop the House of Commons of the United Kingdom from taking a further 12 hours or 18 hours, if that is the will of Parliament, to complete its considerations? What is the argument against us using the time between now and the recess to the full and sitting through the night, as we have done on many occasions in the past, to make sure that the legislation is properly scrutinised?

Mr. Howard: That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when he introduced the timetable motion: it is a question of balance. We want the powers in the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. We believe that they have a part to play in the more effective prevention of terrorism and that they have the potential to save life. In those circumstances, I believe that it is incumbent upon the House to proceed with all due dispatch and to deal with the matter expeditiously, so that it can be considered in another place before the Easter recess, and so that the police can have those powers available to them.

Mr. Beith: The police have been raising this matter for ages.

Mr. Howard: If I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said from a sedentary position that we have taken ages. He said earlier that the Bill had been gathering dust on the shelf at the Home Office for a long time and suggested that the powers had been asked for years ago. That is not the case. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said earlier, Ministers came to a conclusion about the need for those powers last week. In fact, Ministers came to a conclusion about that on Thursday.


I sent a message out from the meeting at which that decision was made to invite the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, the hon. Member for Blackburn and the spokesmen for all the other Opposition parties to meet me on that day so that I could communicate to them at the earliest opportunity the decision that the Government had reached and the way in which we hoped to proceed. We proceeded at the earliest possible moment. I may have explained that in slightly less detail in my statement yesterday, and I am happy to supply hon. Members with that greater detail today.

Mr. Beith: The one question that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered is: when did the police first ask him for those powers?

Mr. Howard: I specifically explained that yesterday. In the course of the discussions that I had with the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb, the need for those additional powers evolved and was identified.

Mr. Mackinlay: When?

Mr. Howard: There was no precise moment. The discussions continued with the police in parallel with discussions that I was having with ministerial colleagues. Opposition Members may shake their heads in disbelief, but I fear that that only reinforces and confirms their utter ignorance of the processes of government. I have been endeavouring to adopt a non-partisan approach to the debate.

Mr. Beith: It is a struggle.

Mr. Howard: Yes, sometimes it is a struggle, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Such is the history of how matters evolved. Let me say to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and other hon. Members that I contacted the spokesmen for the Opposition parties at the earliest possible moment that I could have done after Ministers had reached a decision, and I came to the House at the earliest possible moment thereafter.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have just one more question on the matter. Will the Home Secretary say clearly0 to the House when the police first discussed the matter with him? We have reason to believe that it was some significant time before the Canary wharf bomb. Those matters may have been discussed more recently, but it is understood that they have been under discussion between the police and the Home Office for many months. Is the Home Secretary denying that, and if so, will he do so at the Dispatch Box, in front of the House?

Mr. Howard: The powers were the subject of discussion between me and the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb. That is right.

Mr. Hughes: And before?

Mr. Howard: The powers were the subject of discussion between me and the police in the aftermath of the South Quay bombing—

Mr. Hughes: Not before?

Mr. Howard: Not before the South Quay bomb. I had discussions about the powers with the police after the bomb. That is when they took place. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Tony Banks: To hear this Home Secretary talk about being non-partisan is very scary. The Home

Secretary keeps on talking about "my discussions with the police", so will he tell us, if he has not already done so, which particular police officers were involved and which organisation?

Mr. Howard: I will not identify particular police officers, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that I discussed those matters with the senior police officer who has particular responsibility within the police service for dealing with the terrorist threat. That is the appropriate person with whom to have such discussions.

Mr. McNamara: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that he discussed these matters after the South Quay bomb. Can he tell the House whether representatives of his Department and his officials discussed those powers with the police before that bomb? That is point behind hon. Members' questions. Those powers were an issue before the bomb and were the subject of discussions with his Department, if not with him or his junior Ministers.

Mr. Howard: Obviously, I have to be careful in what I say at the Dispatch Box. To my knowledge, discussions of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman referred did not take place. The discussions to which I referred—which took place between me and senior police officers charged with the responsibility of combating terrorism—did not emerge from discussions at official level. To my knowledge, the discussions were not the culmination of previous discussions at official level—the discussions evolved during my discussions with the police officers. That is the most complete answer that I can give to the hon. Gentleman and to the House.

Mr. Madden: I ask the Home Secretary for some facts on which we may be able to form a judgment about the need for the additional powers. First, will he tell us— over whatever is the most convenient period— how many people have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related offences in Northern Ireland, where stop-and-search powers have applied for many years, as he has just confirmed? Secondly, how many people have been arrested and charged in the City and in the Metropolitan police area under the existing stop-and-search powers in the past month?

Mr. Howard: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that those questions are more precisely related to the need for the powers—which I hope we will be discussing later this evening. He was courteous enough to give me notice that he wished to ask a question of that kind and later in the debate I shall do my best to provide as much information as I can in relation to that point.
We were discussing the limited nature of the stop-and search-power, which has been the most controversial of the powers that the Bill provides. I make no claim to the kind of expertise in the sus law to which the hon. Member for Blackburn laid claim—Icannot match his expertise in that field. However, I feel that he gave the House a clear and absolutely compelling analysis of the differences between this power and the sus law. They are completely different. It is completely misleading to suggest to the House, and far more to people outside the House, that the Bill in any way brings back the sus law. It is a completely


different and much more limited power, hedged around with safeguards that were acknowledged by the hon. Gentleman.
It is quite clear that there is a need for the powers—and I think that even many hon. Members who spoke in opposition to the timetable motion acknowledged that. The need for these powers is urgent. As was said by a number of contributors to the debate—otably in a powerful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) —the greatest civil liberty to which our constituents aspire, and the civil liberty which we in this House should do most to protect, is the civil liberty not to be blown up by a terrorist bomb and not to be shot by a terrorist bullet.
The police need these powers as a matter of urgency to more effectively protect those civil liberties of our constituents. It is on that basis that I commend the timetable motion to the House.

Mr. Beith: I remind hon. Members that the choice before them is whether to debate this matter on the basis on which each group of amendments will receive no more than five minutes' debate, which will not allow time for Divisions, or whether we will have an additional three hours in which to ensure that the powers are on the statute book well within the timetable outlined by the Home Secretary. The choice before hon. Members is not whether they deny the police powers that will save lives, but whether we work out these powers carefully enough to ensure that they are helpful, and that civil liberties are safeguarded, and have an additional three hours—no more—to do so. That is the subject on which I now invite hon. Members to support me in my amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 261.]

Division No. 92]
[18.33 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Livingstone, Ken


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Barnes, Harry
McGrady, Eddie


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Mackinlay, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bennett, Andrew F
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maddock, Diana


Burden, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Chidgey, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L


Cohen, Harry
Rendel, David


Corbett, Robin
Salmond Alex


Corbyn, Jeremy
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, Roseanna
Skinner, Dennis


Dafis, Cynog
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Tyler, Paul


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Wallace, James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Wareing, Robert N


Gerrard, Neil
Wise, Audrey


Godman, Dr Norman A



Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)



Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Mr. Simon Higel Jones


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Nigel Jones.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Fabricant, Michael


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Alexander, Richard
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forth, Eric


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fowler, Rt hon Sir Norman


Ashby, David
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
French, Douglas


Bates, Michael
Gale, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
Gallie, Phil


Beggs, Roy
Gardiner, Sir George


Bellingham, Henry
Garnier, Edward


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gorst, Sir John


Booth, Hartley
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Boswell, Tim
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hamilton, Neil (Talton)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brazier, Julian
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Bright, Sir Graham
Hannam, Sir John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M (Brio & Cl'thorpes)
Harris David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butcher, John
Hayes, Jerry


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert


Cash, William
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Sir john (Ravensbourne)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cran, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Booth ferry)
King Rt Hon Tom


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dunn, Bob
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dykes, Hugh
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Leigh, Edward


Elletson, Harold
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lidington, David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luff, Peter


Faber, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas






MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


MacKay, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spicer, Sir Micheal (S Worcs)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spink, Dr Robert


Major, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


Malone, Gerald
Sproat, Iain


Mans, Keith
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marland, Paul
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Stem, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stewart, Allan


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Streeter, Gary


Moate, Sir Roger
Sumberg, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Sweeney, Walter


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Sykes, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thomason, Roy


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thurnham, Peter


Norris, Steve
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Tracey, Richard


Ottaway, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Paice, James
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Trimble, David


Patten, Rt Hon John
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Walden, George


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary


Powell, William (Corby)
Ward, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Watts, John


Richards, Rod
Wells, Bowen


Riddick, Graham
Whitney, Ray


Robathan, Andrew
Whittingdale, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Widdecombe, Ann


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilkinson, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Willetts, David


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Sir Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Derek Conway and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. Simon Burns.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 81.

Main Question put:—

The House divided:Ayes 256, Noes 44.

Division No. 93]
[18.47 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Amess, David


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alexander, Richard
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Allason, Rupert (Torboy)
Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)





Ashby, David
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Atkins, Rt Hon Robert
French, Douglas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gale, Roger


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gallie, Phil


Bates, Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Batiste, Spencer
Garnier, Edward


Beggs, Roy
Gillan, Cheryl


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beresford, Sir Paul
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, Sir John


Body, Sir Richard
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Booth, Hartley
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boswell, Tim
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Brandreth, Gyles
Hannam, Sir John


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bright, Sir Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Hawksley, Warren


Burt, Alistair
Hayes, Jerry


Butcher, John
Heald, Oliver


Butler, Peter
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clappison, James
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jessel, Toby


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Key, Robert


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Leigh, Edward


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Elletson, Harold
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lidington, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Luff, Peter


Evennett, David
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Faber, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fabricant, Michael
MacKay, Andrew


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fishburn, Dudley
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marland, Paul


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Merchant, Piers


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mills, Iain






Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moate, Sir Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Steen, Anthony


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stephen, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan


Nelson, Anthony
Streeter, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholls, Patrick
Sykes, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Temple-Morris, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trend, Michael


Porter, David (Waveney)
Trimble, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trotter, Neville


Powell, William (Corby)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rathbone, Tim
Viggers, Peter


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


Richards, Rod
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Riddick, Graham
Waller, Gary


Robathan, Andrew
Ward, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Watts, John


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Whittingdale, John


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir, Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilkinson, John


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Willetts, David


Shersby, Sir Michael
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wolfson, Mark


Smyth, The Reverend Martin
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Sir Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)



Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Simon Burns and


Spring, Richard
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Loyden, Eddie


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Barnes, Harry
McGrady, Eddie


Beth, Rt Hon A J
Mackinlay, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McNamara, Kevin


Bennett, Andrew F
Madden, Max


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Maddock, Diana


Burden, Richard
Mahon, Alice


Canavan, Dennis
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Chidgey, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L


Cohen, Harry
Rendel, David


Corbett, Robin
Salmond, Alex


Corbyn, Jeremy
Sedgemore, Brian


Cunningham, Roseanna
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Tyler, Paul


Gerrard, Neil
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A
Wareing, Robert N


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wise, Audrey


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)



Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Simon Hughes and


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Nigel Jones.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill:—

Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading

1—(1) The proceedings on Second Reading, in Committee and on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement.

(3) The proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(4) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings in Committee.

(5) When the Bill has been read a second time it shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any question being put and the Speaker shall forthwith leave the chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(6) On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with Amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(7) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings in Committee or on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Conclusion of proceedings

2.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to any proceedings on the Bill which are to be brought to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (2) shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock and proceedings to which this Order applies have begun before that time.—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on Consideration of any Lords Amendments shall be completed at the sitting on 3rd April and, if not previously brought to a conclusion, shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 3 above.—



(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith, with respect to all of the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of, the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in those Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

5.—(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

(3) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Business Committee

6. Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
Dilatory Motions

7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time

8. Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on the Bill.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) If at any day's sitting the House is adjourned, or if the sitting is suspended before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order prevents any proceedings to which this Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by this Order.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages, respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I gave notice to the House yesterday of my intention to introduce the Bill, I spoke of my anger and sorrow that the emergency powers continue to be needed, but they are needed to defend and protect our citizens from terrorists who seek to dominate, disrupt and destroy our peaceful way of life. The Bill provides additional practical powers to strengthen the ability of the police to protect the public against the threat from terrorism.
The House—and those whom we represent here—was shocked and appalled by the way in which the IRA signalled its return to violence on 9 February. Its actions that night, resulting in death and injury, shattered the hopes of the British people that the peace might be a lasting one. The door to peace nevertheless remains open. A date has been set for all-party talks. The necessary steps to establish the elective process for entry into those talks are under way. Sinn Fein-IRA has yet to seize the opportunity to take part, but the peace process will go forward—with or without that organisation.
We continue to hope for the best, but we must prepare for and guard against the worse so that we can deal effectively with whatever may come. We continue to face a serious threat from terrorism. The need to maintain our existing defences is beyond question. That is why three weeks ago I asked the House to renew the provisions of the prevention of terrorism Act for a further 12 months, but I now believe that we need to do more.
I have kept in close contact with the police since the South Quay bomb. I was determined to ensure that they had all the powers that they needed to combat terrorism and protect the public. I have concluded that additional powers are now necessary. The Bill will provide those powers.
The Bill makes a number of amendments to the prevention of terrorism Act. Each will clarify and strengthen the powers of the police, reinforcing their ability to protect the public against the IRA and other terrorists. The Bill will enable the police to stop and search pedestrians for articles that can be used in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorist acts; search non-residential premises for evidence that will be of value to a terrorist investigation; search unaccompanied freight in ports; cordon off areas to look for a bomb or to collect forensic evidence after a bomb has been found or

has exploded; and impose temporary parking restrictions in response to a general threat to vulnerable sites, such as Government buildings.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are there circumstances other than those involving Northern Ireland in which the Home Secretary can envisage the powers to which he has just referred being used?

Mr. Howard: The purpose of the powers is to enable the police to combat all terrorism effectively. It is conceivable that a terrorist threat from another source, related to another matter, could cause the police to regard the exercise of those powers as desirable. I would certainly not wish to exclude that possibility.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: What is proposed, albeit in limited circumstances, is a stop-and-search power. Those of us who voted for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—I served on the Standing Committee that considered PACE—feel that the balance of power is too much in favour of the criminal. If my right hon. and learned Friend is prepared to consider a stop-and-search power in the current circumstances, is it not time to reconsider PACE, bearing in mind the fact that we are 10 years on and that the powers in that measure need to be reviewed? He could then invite the Labour party to join us on that as well.

Mr. Howard: That is no part of today's proposals. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not join him in speculating about the possibilities that he has attempted to put before me.

Mr. Max Madden: Perhaps this is an opportune moment for me to ask the question of which I gave the Secretary of State's office notice this morning and earlier in today's proceedings. How many people in the City and the Metropolitan police area have been arrested and charged with terrorist-related offences under the existing stop-and-search powers? How many people in Northern Ireland, where stop-and-search powers have applied for some years, have been arrested and charged with and convicted of offences related to terrorism?

Mr. Howard: I do not have the figures for Northern Ireland at present and I am not certain that I shall have them today. I shall certainly let the hon. Gentleman have them as soon as they are available.
The hon. Gentleman has asked a series of detailed questions about the use of the existing section 13A powers by the Metropolitan police. The figures are as follows: in the five Metropolitan police areas, there have been 1, 746 vehicle stops under the power; there have been 8, 142 vehicle stops within the Heathrow perimeter; there have been 1, 695 searches of vehicles within the Metropolitan police area and 6, 854 within the Heathrow perimeter; 2, 373 persons have been searched as occupants of a vehicle within the Metropolitan police area and 40 within the Heathrow perimeter. That has led to two arrests under the prevention of terrorism Act and 66 other arrests. I hope that I have been able to answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, at least in part.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The use of stop-and-search powers in Northern Ireland has diverted would-be terrorists from their task. In addition, people have been apprehended and weapons have been found.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his analysis. The number of arrests does not present the whole picture. The value of the power extends far beyond the number of arrests. Those who have experience of its use, such as those whom the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and his colleagues represent in the House, are fully aware of the value of that power in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Home Secretary be a little more explicit in his reply to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)? The hon. Gentleman asked about further extending PACE and the Secretary of State replied that he felt that it was not part of the Bill and that therefore he could not reply specifically. Is he ruling out for the rest of this Parliament the recommendation that the hon. Gentleman made in his intervention?

Mr. Howard: I have no plans at the moment to go along the road that my hon. Friend invited me to travel with him, but in the context of today's debate I am not ruling in or out other changes to the criminal law and our system of criminal justice. I certainly agree with the general point made by my hon. Friend that the balance in our criminal justice system has tilted much too far in favour of the criminal and away from the protection of the public. We have taken a number of measures to remedy that in the past few years and I have plans, which I shall announce shortly, further to improve that balance. I have no plans to introduce the particular remedy that my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Home Secretary told us that two arrests were made under the stop-and-search powers in the PTA. Were charges laid and, if so, what were they and were there any convictions?

Mr. Howard: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. I am sure that he has been listening attentively to the debate, so I remind him of my exchange with the hon. Member for Belfast, South, which clearly reinforced the proposition that the value of the powers is not simply to be derived from an examination of the statistics.
Each of the new provisions will make a difference. Each is designed to ensure that the police will be better equipped to protect and safeguard the public, and to combat terrorism. I have, as I said yesterday and earlier today, discussed my proposals with Opposition spokesmen. I welcome the support of the hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I very much welcome the recognition by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of the need to act quickly.

Mr. Tony Benn: New section 13B(2) suggests that searching may be carried out when there is a suspicion of the instigation of acts of terrorism. Would "instigation" include written material containing political objectives which, it might be argued before a court,

constituted an instigation to terrorism? What does the phrase mean? "Instigation" has a political flavour of a wholly different character from the other acts referred to.

Mr. Howard: Whether the possession of written material might constitute evidence of instigation would depend on the nature of the written material; in the end it would be a matter for the court to determine. It would clearly have to be more than political propaganda, which would not amount to an instigation to terrorism. But there could be written material that showed that someone was involved in encouraging others to commit terrorist acts, or something of that kind. That might well involve the instigation of terrorism—

Mr. Benn: But instigation has many meanings. If someone writes a pamphlet, or has pamphlets on him, containing the argument that Britain should not be in Northern Ireland, and if that pamphlet were distributed, might it be held, in the Home Secretary's view, that the very presentation of the arguments in the pamphlet would instigate some people to terrorist acts? The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be clear about that.

Mr. Howard: I can be perfectly clear about that example. Of course advocacy of a particular status for Northern Ireland would not involve instigation to terrorism—that is the expression of a political view. I do not know whether it will reassure the right hon. Gentleman—it may or may not—to learn that this is not a new phrase designed specifically for this Bill. It is time-honoured language, used in the prevention of terrorism Act in a different but similar context. As the House would expect, we seek to follow and reproduce the language in the PTA to the fullest possible extent.
I turn next to the detailed content of the Bill. Clause 1 fills a lacuna in the existing powers under section 13A of the prevention of terrorism Act. Section 13A was added to the Act by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It currently allows a constable to stop and search any vehicle, its driver and any passenger in it. He may also stop any pedestrian and search anything he is carrying for articles of a kind that could be used in preparing, commissioning or instigating terrorist acts. But he cannot search the pedestrian for anything which he or she may have concealed about them—for example, in a jacket pocket.
The operation of the existing stop-and-search powers has led the police to believe that an additional power to search pedestrians would be of real practical benefit. I accept that. Bombs and incendiary devices do not need to be very large to kill or destroy. A typical device may be no bigger than an audio cassette. I have seen examples of what has been found, and I must tell the House that it is perfectly possible to carry one or more of these devices in pockets without an observer being any the wiser. But these things are not just carried in pockets. In Northern Ireland, explosives and other material have been found in shoes; and guns and other weaponry can easily be concealed under a shirt or jacket.

Mr. A. J. Beith: If, under the terms of this clause, a constable carries out a search of outer clothing and finds nothing but becomes suspicious about the behaviour of the person, would he, under


existing powers, then be able to proceed to examine the person's shirt pocket, which could equally well accommodate the item being looked for?

Mr. Howard: Not under these powers; but once a constable entertains suspicions relating to the person whom he is searching, the powers under PACE come into play, and the usual search powers are available to him: he can search the person in the way the right hon. Gentleman has described, or take the person to a police station.
Clause 1 accordingly inserts new section 13B into the PTA, giving the police power to stop and search pedestrians in a designated area. Clear safeguards will apply, as in section 13A. Searches will be allowed only within an area authorised by an assistant chief constable and only for a specified period of up to 28 days. In addition, authorisation of the exercise of the new powers must be confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of the authorisation having been given. If that confirmation is not forthcoming, the authorisation will lapse. The Bill further provides that the Secretary of State will have the power to cancel the authorisation and/or if he wishes, to substitute a shorter period during which the powers will be exercised.

Mr. David Trimble: I wonder whether the procedure whereby areas must be specified before the powers become exercisable is not unduly restrictive. Under section 13A, the procedure has been used only after incidents have occurred, which suggests closing the stable door after the event. Such measures may be of general reassurance to the public, but they do nothing to prevent serious incidents from occurring. Do we not really need powers of this nature to become operative before incidents occur, not after them?

Mr. Howard: We do, and these powers would so apply. The reason why thus far they have been used only after the event is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, that they came into force only after the ceasefire was declared and have been used only since the South Quay bomb. But that is no sure guide to how they will be used in future. I would expect them to be used in advance of a terrorist outrage when there is intelligence that such an outrage may be committed in a particular area. Therein lies the real necessity for these powers—not just to be used after an outrage but in anticipation of one, thereby enabling it to be prevented. That is what the powers are designed to achieve.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: A moment ago the Home Secretary referred to the role of the Secretary of State. Will he confirm that, where Scotland is concerned, he is talking about the Secretary of State for Scotland—except perhaps when he is absent and his role may be taken on by the Home Secretary?
Were senior Scottish police officers consulted on these matters?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Home Secretary would usually give the authorisation in England and Wales, and the Scottish Secretary would give it in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, there

will be times when the Secretary of State is not available and it is appropriate for some other Secretary of State to act in his place.
As for consultation, I said earlier that my discussions had been with the senior police officer responsible for countering the terrorist threat in Great Britain. I have no doubt that he reflected the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) as well as those of the rest of the police service.
Once authorisation has been given, a police officer will be able to stop any pedestrian and search him and anything he is carrying for terrorist devices or other material. The search will be a rub-down search. The officer may ask the pedestrian to remove his outer coat, jacket, footwear, gloves or headgear in public to facilitate the search.
To enforce the new power, clause 1 also creates offences of failing to stop when asked to do so and of wilfully obstructing a constable in the exercise of the new powers. These mirror the offences in section 13A and will carry the same penalty—on summary conviction, up to six months' imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both. Prosecution for either offence will proceed only by or with the agreement of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I see no specific reference in clause 1 to a warrant to enable a police officer to use the stop-and-search powers in relation to people, yet in clause 2 there is a specific reference to a warrant from a justice of the peace to enable the police to search non-residential premises. Does that mean that people are less important than non-residential premises?

Mr. Howard: No, it does not mean that. If the hon. Gentleman reflects for just a moment, he will understand that it would not be practicable to expect a police officer to ask a magistrate for a warrant to search the outer garment of someone he encountered in the street in an area where a terrorist outrage was anticipated. On the other hand, it is perfectly practicable for the police to go to a magistrate if they wish to search premises for bomb-making equipment or a lorry used in the course of an outrage. That is the reason for the distinction between the two clauses.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Home Secretary clarify two points? First, was the Association of Chief Police Officers consulted, did ACPO ask for the powers or did the senior police officer dealing with terrorism ask for the powers? Secondly, if a uniformed British Transport police officer is travelling between railway stations—and he is not in the jurisdiction of railway property—and is in one of the designated areas, will the powers extend to him or her?

Mr. Howard: On the second question, the Bill does not extend the power of British Transport police officers to act outside the places where they are entitled to act under existing powers, but the Bill will give them the enhanced power to stop and search pedestrians if the places in which they are entitled to act are within a wider area designated by a senior police officer in accordance with the Bill.
On the first question, I said earlier that the need for the powers evolved during discussions that I had with senior police officers in the aftermath of the South Quay bomb.


I had a number of such discussions when reviewing the security situation. My recollection is that in the course of those discussions I asked an officer whether he was satisfied that the police had all the powers they needed. That is my best recollection of the way in which the conversation developed. The need for the powers evolved and was identified. Thus we find ourselves here today.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The proposals, which are very limited in scope, have clearly been requested by the police, especially those dealing with terrorism. Is not the deterrence of terrorist acts and the preservation of life worth a little inconvenience?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that those of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members who earlier expressed the view that the greatest civil liberty is to live one's life free of the threat of terrorist bombs and bullets speak for the nation. I am sure that that is the view of our constituents.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I will give way to the hon. Lady, but then I must make some progress. I am conscious that we have little time.

Mrs. Clwyd: I wish to ask for clarification on a point. Will the searches of women be carried out by women police officers?

Mr. Howard: I cannot possibly give the hon. Lady that assurance. If a police officer, in an area designated for the purposes of clause 1 and where a terrorist outrage is believed to be imminent, encounters a woman whom he may have no particular reason to suspect but whom he needs to search to see whether she is carrying a bomb or some other device, it is unrealistic to suggest that he should not do so because a woman police officer is not immediately in the vicinity. I hope that the hon. Lady, on reflection, will see the complete impracticality of her suggestion.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me. We have limited time and I must make some progress. [Interruption.] I do not suppose that Opposition Members would thank me if I took all the time for the Second Reading of the Bill.
The police are well aware that the new power will need to be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. Clear guidance will be issued to police forces to ensure consistent and careful operation. The hon. Member for Blackburn said yesterday that Parliament should receive regular reports on the operation of the new stop-and-search powers. I readily gave that assurance. The hon. Gentleman also asked about monitoring. Again, I have given the assurance that the operation of the stop-and-search powers will be monitored, just as the existing section 13A powers are under the relevant PACE code.

Mrs. Wise: A pedestrian may not know that the area is a designated area. If she refuses to be searched in a

designated area, she will be committing an offence—but she will not know that she is doing so. If I were walking along the street and a police officer said that he wanted to search me, my instinct would be to say no, but I might be committing an offence. What safeguards are there for people in those circumstances? In the event of complaint, it would be the pedestrian's word against that of the police constable. Clause 1 seems to be an invitation for harassment, which worries me.

Mr. Howard: I shall try to allay the hon. Lady's anxieties. In the situation that she envisages, the police officer would tell the woman concerned that she was in an area designated by a senior police officer to enable the police to ask her to stop to be searched. The police officer would tell the woman that if she refused to comply with the request, she would be arrested because she would have committed an offence. The officer would explain clearly to the pedestrian that the area had been designated, the significance of that and the consequences of failing to comply with the officer's request. If the hon. Lady ever found herself in that position, I hope that she would, in the circumstances, comply with the request.
Clause 2 relates to searches of non-residential premises. As hon. Members know, the police sometimes receive reliable intelligence—for example, that explosives are concealed in a garage in a particular area of London or that a lorry carrying home-made explosives has been left in a lorry park near a motorway intersection. Such information is of clear importance and needs to be investigated, but often the intelligence received is not sufficient to identify precisely the garage or lorry park in question. It is currently impossible to obtain a search warrant to enter all relevant premises and examine them.
The new search power in clause 2 will enable a magistrate—or a sheriff in Scotland—to issue a warrant for the police to search a list of premises. The police will not be required to say in which of those listed premises they believe they will find the material. A warrant may be issued only on the application of an officer of at least superintendent rank. Any search of premises named in the warrant must be made within 24 hours of the warrant being issued.
Clause 3 will enable examining officers at ports to search unaccompanied freight. At present, the police may stop and examine individuals coming through ports and, in the course of examining them, they may search their baggage and their vehicles for anti-terrorist purposes. Customs officers can search goods that have come from outside the United Kingdom, but police officers cannot, at present, search cargo that is not accompanied by an individual. Clause 3 will allow them to do so.
With trade increasing and up to 10, 000 items of freight coming through west-coast ports each day, the police cannot and will not search all of them. But spot checks and checks following intelligence received should do much to deter and disrupt terrorists' plans and the restocking of their armoury. That is the only one of the powers that is not currently available in Northern Ireland and the Bill will therefore extend that power to the Province as well as to Great Britain.
Clause 4 will enable the police to cordon off an area and restrict access while they look for a bomb or while they collect forensic evidence following the discovery of a bomb or an explosion. The police already have limited


powers under common law to impose cordons, but the extent of their existing powers is uncertain. Clause 4 will provide a firm statutory basis and will remove that uncertainty. It will ensure that the police can exclude people from a cordon for their own safety and for the safety of others, and it will ensure that they can keep a zone sterile until they have completed any forensic examination of the scene.
The new power will be exercised initially for a period of up to 14 days and will be capable of renewal for up to a further 14 days. However, past experience suggests that most cordons will be kept in place for less than two weeks. The new power will be subject to the authorisation of an officer of at least superintendent rank. However, in an emergency it may be invoked by any constable and then confirmed by a superintendent or officer of more senior rank.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Home Secretary spoke about the common law. If the Bill is challenged in Europe, can the Home Secretary revert to the common law principle that the police have the right to cordon off certain areas and search them?

Mr. Howard: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance because the Bill provides that its powers are additional to existing powers. In the event that the hon. Gentleman anticipates, which I hope will not arise, common law powers would still be available for use.

Mr. Mackinlay: I do not think that the chief officer of the Royal Parks constabulary is of superintendent rank. Who would retrospectively confirm an urgent action that had been taken by royal parks officers? Does the "urgency" power that is mentioned in clause 4 extend to ports police forces, which are privately owned and controlled? Northern Ireland airports and the ports of Tilbury, Teesside and Felixstowe all have private police forces of sworn constables, but those forces certainly do not have anybody of superintendent rank in their structures.

Mr. Howard: The officer would be the superintendent of the police force in whose area the royal park, for example, was situated. If there were any question of retrospective authorisation, that superintendent would be responsible for it. I hope that that deals with the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Mackinlay: What about ports?

Mr. Howard: Exactly the same consideration would apply. Authorisation would be by the superintendent of the force within whose area the port was situated.
The schedule sets out the powers that may be exercised by the police inside the cordon. These include power to search premises within the cordon for any device or other terrorist material and to collect any forensic evidence found. Offences are created of failing to leave the cordon when required to do so and of breaking the cordon and obstructing a constable in the exercise of any of his powers within the cordon. Prosecution will proceed only by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. As an additional safeguard, a defence is provided for those who can prove that they have lawful authority or a reasonable excuse for their actions.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How will the search powers apply inside and outside a cordoned area? I understand that outside such an area the police have to apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, which occasionally takes some time. Is putting a cordon around an area a short cut so that they do not have to apply for a warrant?

Mr. Howard: I understood the hon. Gentleman's question to relate to the power to search premises within a cordon. As the cordon will be set up only in circumstances of some urgency, I understand that the power to search premises within it will not require a warrant.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is on an important point. In speaking to clause 4 he spoke specifically in terms of the possibility of bombs, explosives and so on, but the clause is not that limited. It relates to the preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It is not as finely defined as the Home Secretary suggests. Therefore, the point that he made in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) would not necessarily apply.

Mr. Howard: I make no apology for the fact that the police should be allowed to search for material that might help to bring to justice those who made the bombs or who might be prepared to use weapons, and not simply to look for bombs or bullets. If the hon. Gentleman takes the view that it would be reasonable to allow the police to look only for bombs or bullets, that is not a view that I share.

Mr. McNamara: That was not the point that I made. My point was that, normally, one would need a warrant to search premises, but for a cordoned area a warrant is not needed. [Interruption.] I am sorry that I have an effect on my hon. Friends. Designating an area could be seen as a short cut to a mass search of premises. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish made.

Mr. Howard: I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the circumstances that we are considering. We are considering circumstances in which the police are endeavouring to find a bomb or evidence about the identity of those who were responsible for planting a bomb. The police will wish to search for any evidence that will assist them in those objectives, and it is right that they should have the power to do that. That is why the power is so framed.
The Whip reminds me about the length of time for which I have been speaking. I must seek to make more progress.
Clause 5 will give the police the power to impose temporary parking restrictions on roads or parts of roads in response to a general threat to vulnerable targets such as Government buildings, financial centres, major transport facilities and so on. Again, the police have powers under common law, but there is uncertainty as to their extent and the length of time for which they can be used. The powers of the police in this area require statutory underpinning.
The power in clause 5 will be subject to the authorisation of an assistant chief constable or equivalent ranking officer. It will be exercisable only for a stipulated


period of up to 28 days. There is no intention to prohibit loading or unloading, so business should be little disturbed. Offences will be created of failure to remove a vehicle when asked to do so and of parking in breach of a prohibition or restriction. Again, the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions will be required for any prosecution, and a defence of lawful authority or reasonable excuse has been provided.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I must finish my speech.
Clause 6 provides that the Director of Public Prosecutions must consent to any prosecution for the offences created to enforce the powers given in clauses 1, 4 and 5. Clause 7 deals with the territorial extent of the new powers. Clause 3 extends to the whole of the United Kingdom. All the other provisions in the Bill apply only to Great Britain, since these powers are already available to the police and the security forces in Northern Ireland.
The measures in the Bill are sensible and practical. They are subject to clear and careful safeguards. I referred earlier to the concerns expressed yesterday by the hon. Member for Blackburn about the exercise of the new power to stop and search pedestrians. I have given him assurances that Parliament will receive regular reports on the operation of that power, and that its exercise will be monitored. I have considered whether putting this in the Bill would provide any additional safeguard, and I have concluded that that is not necessary. PACE code A will apply to new section 13B of the prevention of terrorism Act as it does to existing section 13A. I am glad to take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances that I gave yesterday.
These measures will be of real practical benefit to the police in protecting the public against the threat of terrorism. The need for them is immediate. The police deserve the support of the House in their fight against terrorism. I hope that the House will give them that support. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Jack Straw: In August 1994, the Provisional IRA gave notice that it had agreed to a ceasefire, and Sinn Fein gave notice that it had agreed to take part in a process leading to a negotiated peace in Ireland. Both Sinn Fein and the IRA left the impression that they were fully committed to a democratic approach to politics. On 9 February this year, the Provisional IRA ended the ceasefire, unilaterally and without notice.
It was a large bomb which announced the withdrawal of the Provisional IRA from the peace process—a grotesque reminder of the organisation's ambiguous approach to participation in that peace process and in democratic politics. A number of people were killed by the Canary wharf bomb; many more were injured or shocked, and millions of pounds of damage was done to homes and businesses. The people and the area have still not recovered from the deep trauma of that bombing. It was followed by the explosion of a bomb on a bus at the Aldwych—a bomb which happened to kill only the perpetrator of the proposed outrage, but which could easily have caused scores of injuries and deaths in central London.
We need to remember that the resumption of violence by the Provisional IRA, and that alone, prompted the introduction of the Bill and our support for it. Any additional powers, such as the powers contained in the Bill, are bound to cause some inconvenience to innocent members of the public, but we consider that that inconvenience is vastly outweighed by the need to secure public safety.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Given all that the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, and given his welcome bipartisan approach, does he not feel somewhat embarrassed by the nit-picking approach of many of his hon. Friends—particularly that of the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), who said that, if stopped by a police officer and asked to agree to a search, she would refuse? In the light of recent events, is the hon. Gentleman not even more embarrassed by the fact that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) agreed to appear on the platform at a Sinn Fein conference? Does he not feel that the party Whip should have been withdrawn from his hon. Friend, as many Conservative Members—including me—demanded?

Mr. Straw: I am not embarrassed by the concerns of my colleagues.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes you are.

Mr. Straw: With respect, I will speak for myself. I would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman if I were embarrassed by those concerns, but I am not in the least embarrassed. I recognise them, but I do not share them, and I hope to persuade some of my hon. Friends that they are misplaced. As for the question about my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), it has already been made very clear that the Labour party did not approve of his speaking on a Sinn Fein platform, and he has apologised for so doing.

Mr. Clive Soley: Just to make sure that hon. Members do not become too party political, may I remind Conservative Members that theirs was the party that talked to the IRA, and also flew the IRA around in RAF helicopters at public expense? The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) should be a little more careful about whom he accuses.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend knows a good deal more about the details. He is absolutely right: we need to be very careful before trying to score partisan points in a debate such as this. Nevertheless, it is true that the British Government negotiated with the IRA for a long time before admitting it: indeed, while they were negotiating, they publicly denied it. We have never made too much of a point of the fact that—perhaps for good reasons—the House was misled about what was going on.
As I have said, we are satisfied that the powers in the Bill are proportionate to the threat. Let me make it clear, however—especially to my hon. Friends who are anxious about those powers—that, when we were asked to support the Bill, my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and I, along with colleagues, went to great lengths to examine the proposals, and to judge for ourselves whether the powers were necessary. We decided that,


given the history of the sus law—with which, as I explained during the debate on the timetable motion, I happen to be particularly familiar—and the anxiety about the disproportionate number of black people, for example, who are arrested under the ordinary stop-and-search powers, we would have to give careful consideration to the provision of any further search powers.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in recent vehicle searches in London in connection with the PTA, a disproportionate number of cars with either black drivers or black occupants, or both, have been stopped? That suggests that the police target the black community to a disproportionate extent when they have the power to stop and search vehicles. Can my hon. Friend give any guarantee that the police will not do exactly the same with black pedestrians if the power in the Bill is given to them?

Mr. Straw: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. I recall that, according to a parliamentary answer given on, I believe, Friday of last week, some 60 per cent. of 160, 000 people who were stopped by the police in the Greater London area last year—not under powers connected with the PTA, but under general powers to stop people on reasonable suspicion—were black or of Asian origin. That obviously gives cause for concern.
The police have their own explanation. They say that the same proportion of people are arrested following stops of black people as are arrested following other stops. I am very concerned about the issue, however, and feel that we should examine it carefully. Perhaps, in time, the Commission for Racial Equality should investigate it. We must ensure that every citizen is treated in exactly the same way, regardless of skin colour. I give my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) that thorough undertaking. One of the reasons why I raised with the Home Secretary, almost immediately, the need for explicit monitoring of the way in which this power is used—including ethnic monitoring—was my concern about the possibility that a disproportionate number of black people could be stopped and searched.

Mrs. Wise: In view of Conservative comments, does my hon. Friend agree that a woman walking in an area that was familiar to her, unaware that it had suddenly become a designated area, would be entitled to be distinctly startled and suspicious if approached by a male police officer who wanted to carry out a rub-down search? Is it not reasonable for female Members to express some concern about that aspect of the proposals?

Mr. Straw: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. The point is raised in an amendment that I have tabled, along with some of my hon. Friends.
In his statement yesterday, the Home Secretary said that he expected the police to undertake such searches with—I think—circumspection and sensitivity. That will have to happen. It is essential for proper guidance to be given to the police about the circumstances in which the searches are conducted, and—as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North—for them to be properly monitored.
As I said earlier, I believe that anyone who looks carefully at the nature of the additional powers conferred by clause 1 cannot fail to conclude that those powers do not involve any gratuitous erosion of the liberty of the subject. Although they are important, they do not differ in character from powers that were placed on the statute book in 1994. Let me point out to my hon. Friends that, when section 13A of the 1989 Act was discussed during the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—in our debates on clause 62 of the Bill—although we raised a number of probing points, we did not challenge the principle behind section 13A; nor, as far as I am aware, did any of my hon. Friends raise any question about it on Report.
We supported the need for those powers relating to searches of vehicle occupants. If it is appropriate in the limited circumstances of the PTA for the occupant of a vehicle to be subject to an outer-body rub-down search, I do not fully understand the argument that that is not an erosion of civil liberties—so small an erosion of civil liberties that none of my hon. Friends raised any question about it when it came up in February 1994—but stopping a person who happens to be outside a vehicle in exactly similar circumstances and giving them an outer-body rub-down search is a major erosion of civil liberties. Frankly, that argument does not hold.
The second argument is whether there is any parallel between the power under section 13B and the old sus law. Although I went into that point in detail during the debate on the timetable motion, it is worth repeating one or two points about the sus law. The sus law was based on section 14 of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which made it an offence to be a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence. The offence was risible. The law enabled any pair of police officers not only to charge somebody but to convict them if they did not like the person's face or what they appeared to be doing.
All that was required was that first, the offender committed one act that gave rise to a suspicion, and, secondly, the offender committed another act that gave rise to him being a suspicious person loitering with intent. It required only that someone felt one car door, and then felt another. There needed to be no separation in time for an offence to be committed. I am not saying that if two door handles were felt it would not arouse suspicion in the mind of anybody watching, but there could easily be a perfectly good explanation. Under the sus law, however, simply feeling two car door handles amounted to the offence.
Moreover, under the sus law—this is unique as far as I am aware in English criminal law, save when someone puts their own character into evidence—an individual's previous convictions, if any, were adducible in evidence as proof of the fact that he was a suspicious person and likely to have developed an intent to commit an arrestable offence. It was the most outrageous offence and open to patent abuse, but on any analysis, there is no parallel whatever between the sus law and the commission of an offence under section 13B.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I give way to a man whom I know to be an even greater expert than me on the sus law.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I deny that, but what I do not deny, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not deny,


Is that a Conservative Government abolished the Vagrancy Act after it had been on the statute book through years of the Labour Government.

Mr. Corbyn: The Tories introduced it.

Mr. Straw: I cast my mind back to who was in power in 1824. I was expecting some parallel to be drawn not only with the sus law but with the six Acts introduced in 1819 to suppress all kinds of political activity. I am glad that such a parallel has not been drawn. The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) is right that the change was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1980. We supported that Act. It was deeply liberal, and I am glad to have it on record that he supported it, as did the liberal Home Secretary. We will ensure that it is well known to the electors of Folkestone and any other constituency in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman appears during the general election campaign that he is guilty of replacing the sus law with something more liberal.

Mr. Howard: I am very sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. I dare say that I would have supported the Bill if I had been in the House at the time, but I was not.

Mr. Straw: The hon. and learned Member for Burton, who usually speaks for the Home Secretary, was, I think, in the House, and is certainly guilty of that piece of liberality—soft on suspected persons.

Mr. Madden: I regret to interrupt the jovial encounter, but may I ask my hon. Friend to consider the realities of someone who, say, late on a Saturday night when the pubs and clubs are spilling out, has the misfortune to find himself or herself in a designated area and is stopped and searched by a police officer in the circumstances described by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise)? That person would be stopped for no good reason, according to him or her. If they refused, they could find themselves imprisoned for six months or fined £5, 000. There is very little difference in practice between what we are discussing and the sus law, which we are all glad ended some time ago. Will my hon. Friend reflect on the practice of the police and the security services in recent years to keep known terrorists who are in possession of explosives under surveillance while they drive for hundreds of miles around the motorway network in this country? There was of course the famous case of someone—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are traditionally reasonably short. The hon. Member's has gone on for well over a minute.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has already asked two or three questions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) could answer them.

Mr. Madden: I was merely asking my hon. Friend to contrast that practice with what is mere guesswork.

Mr. Straw: Let me try again. On any analysis, there is no parallel between this power and the sus law. The sus

law made it an offence to be a suspected person loitering with intent. A person did not have to be searched for anything; he just had to be there. If the police suspected somebody, a well-known old lag for example, or one who looked dodgy, one had only to do two things, such as brushing against a car door, that in the police officer's view aroused a suspicion and then aroused the view that one was a suspicious person. Those were the two limbs of the offence. The police officer did not have to know necessarily about a person's previous convictions, but when the case went to court, those previous convictions could be brought up, just to bang home the point that the person was suspicious and was loitering with intent. The result was that the person would be fined or imprisoned. I cannot begin to understand how that offence has any parallel with a situation in which for their own good reasons—

Mr. McNamara: For no good reason.

Mr. Straw: For good reasons that are related to the suppression of terrorism, the police decide to stop and search a number of members of the public and to conduct rub-down body searches. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, "No good reason." Of course we examined carefully the provision that a police officer in such limited circumstances, operating for a limited time, and within a designated area, does not have to show reasonable cause in order to stop someone and search them. I work on the basis, however, that the police do not search people randomly. They will have an operational reason—they might not have to justify that reason in court—to use the power. That is obvious, and that operational reason is related to the suppression of terrorism.

Mr. Bennett: My hon. Friend has been talking about the power's selective use and the Home Secretary has talked of its limited use. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the Bill as it stands, it would be possible to stop and search everyone coming across Westminster bridge, for instance, if Westminster were a designated area?

Mr. Straw: In legal theory, that is true. The police could stop and search everybody coming over the bridge, but there is an issue of proportion and practicality. Police resources are not unlimited. They have plenty of other things to do.
I return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. One has to work on the basis that the police are making their judgments about how best to deploy their resources in order, in this case, to suppress terrorism. They will not randomly scatter their resources, and will make their own judgments about where they think searches are best held.
A number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall deal rapidly with some of the other points that made us believe that the powers were justified and proportionate. First, the Secretary of State explained that there are closer restrictions on the use of the power related to pedestrians than those relating to vehicle occupants. A senior police officer can activate the power for 48 hours only, before he must get the approval of the Secretary of State. Secondly—this applies to the other power contained in the measure—there can be no prosecution without the


consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Thirdly—this is important in relation to monitoring—any person who has been the subject of one of those searches can gain within 12 months a written notice that he has been searched under the powers and not under, for example, the reasonable suspicion powers under other criminal justice measures. Fourthly—a matter to which the House's attention has not been drawn—there is an important limit on the physical extent of the searches that can be made. The Bill states:
Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves.

Mr. Harry Barnes: There are four women Members in the House. How would the measure apply to them in connection with the wearing of jackets?

Mr. Straw: As I read the Bill, somebody wearing an outer jacket—

Mr. Barnes: How would the measure apply to the four hon. Ladies in the Chamber?

Mr. Straw: I am sorry, but I am not going to speculate on what the four hon. Ladies are wearing underneath their jackets. I must decline my hon. Friend's invitation. But if he is asking whether it would be reasonable for a police officer to require someone to remove their jacket if they were wearing nothing underneath it, the answer I think would be no. That would mean that the search had become an intimate body search and would have to be dealt with under separate powers.

Mr. Barnes: It is a serious point. The legislation may be drafted in such a way that it is quite appropriate for men, but it must also apply to women. We can see that the hon. Ladies in the House are not wearing coats that could be removed by an officer under these powers, but are wearing different forms of dress. Would those count as jackets or not? How much clothing can be removed from a woman in those circumstances?

Mr. Straw: The clause says:
Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves.
If a woman were wearing a jacket with nothing underneath it, she could justifiably claim that it is unreasonable to expect her to remove that jacket.
I make this point to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes). Sometimes, in Standing Committees, we feel that our job is worthless. We grind away, tabling amendments that we think fall on deaf ears. Having spent 17 years in opposition, I must say that that has often been my experience, and that of some of my hon. Friends. No one could have spent longer in opposition continuously than me and those of my hon. Friends who came to Parliament with me on 3 May 1979. But that impression is untrue. On 30 January 1996, some of my hon. Friends—including the hon. Members for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) and for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington)—tabled an amendment to

the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The amendment proposed that an equivalent power to the one we are discussing today be included in the Bill, and said:
this is not to be construed as authorising any person conducting a search under this section to require a person being searched to remove any of his clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket, headgear or gloves.
Despite the persuasive powers of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, the amendment was not accepted, but—somehow or other—the view of the Opposition has filtered through the ether and has been reflected in section 13B(4), or clause 1 of the Bill. We can hardly complain that an important safeguard that we asked for in respect of the Northern Ireland legislation has now been included in the legislation for Great Britain.

Mr. Jim Dowd: Has my hon. Friend received a mirror-image assurance from the Government that they will now extend that measure to the powers exercised in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Straw: I have not discussed that matter, but the Minister may wish to comment on that when he winds up.
The Secretary of State has dealt with both the additional safeguards that I suggested ought to be brought in, and I am grateful to him for what he said. We accept that those do not need to be written into the Bill, since monitoring will be triggered under the other statutory powers that he has announced. He has made it clear that the House will be notified regularly of the use of the powers.
The last thing that I want to say in respect of the search powers—I shall repeat a point that I made during the debate on the timetable motion—is that the nature of searches that we are requiring people to be subject to under section 13B is no different from the searches that we require daily of people visiting the Palace of Westminster. They are almost exactly the same.

Mr. McNamara: When did my hon. Friend last have to take his shoes off when entering the Palace?

Mr. Straw: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is perfectly possible for people to be asked to do that. People coming to visit us in the Palace are subject to checks by electronic machinery. To my certain knowledge—I see it almost every day in the entrance to 1 Parliament street—guards who think that they have seen someone suspicious going through then subject that person to an outer-body search. What is more, those checks have been put in place for the safety of hon. Members, and the Palace would be extremely dangerous were it not for them.
I do not find it convincing to compare the number of searches with the number of arrests. I do not have the figures, but I suspect that following the hundreds of thousands of searches that have been carried out of visitors to the Palace of Westminster, scarcely one arrest has ever been made. But by God, if those searches had not been carried out, not only would there have been a need for arrests, but a number of bombs would have been placed within the Palace of Westminster. We know that that is true, and we do not need to look in a crystal ball to know that. In 1979—when security was not as good as it is now—Airey Neave, in a terrible outrage, was blown up as he left the car park. That is the reality, and the idea that there is some arithmetical connection between the


number of searches carried out and the number of arrests made as a result is, frankly, one that I do not properly comprehend.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We must also remember that a bomb was brought into, and detonated in, this House, causing damage to Westminster Hall.

Mr. Straw: I was not in the House when that happened, but I remember it. I have no doubt that—as the IRA has decided to resume its bombing campaign—were it not for the searches that have been reintroduced far more rigorously, hon. Members, members of staff and the public within the Palace would be vulnerable to terrorist outrages.

Mr. Barnes: The Palace of Westminster could presumably be included in an area in which searches were taking place, so people could be searched outside as they arrived here. Yet the public do have rights of access to the Palace. Will the legislation in any way interfere with those rights? Will a special provision be operated around the Palace, as people might be subject to two searches?

Mr. Straw: Frankly, that is a matter for the Secretary of State to answer, and I invite him to do so when he winds up. From my reading of the Bill, I do not think that it makes any difference to the normal right of access of members of the public to this building, expect when it comes to the first of the four remaining parts of the Bill—if there is a cordon.
I now pick up a point that exercised some of my hon. Friends. I work on the basis, again, that the police will not suddenly throw up a cordon for the hell of it; they will do so for a reason. What is more, although, under the schedule, certain search powers are triggered where there is a cordon, a cordon can be permitted only in very specific circumstances. The circumstances, which are spelled out in clause 4, are:
If it appears to a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent that it is expedient to do so in connection with an investigation into the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism to which this section applies".
That is a very specific circumstance in which either there has been an act of terrorism or the police have every reason to believe that there might be one.
Nobody can argue with the parking restrictions proposed in the Bill nor with the proposal that it should be made—

Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend accept that, while it may be reasonable to restrict parking, there is a problem in requiring cars to be moved? Will he get assurances that someone who is not in a fit state to drive a car is not required to move a car from outside his house?

Mr. Straw: That is a matter for the police. However, I say this to my hon. Friend. I was present—my hon. Friend has raised this matter tangentially—at the Old Bailey when the bomb went up in 1973. The bomb had been placed in a Cortina which was parked outside the Old Bailey. If parking restrictions such as those in the Bill had been in force and if the threat had been anticipated, that bomb would not have gone up. Of course the police must take account of the fact of a driver being disabled, but in

circumstances in which a cordon is being erected or parking restrictions are being enforced in anticipation of a bomb going off, the overriding concern must be the safety of the public.
I shall now deal with non-residential dwelling search warrants. It seems perfectly reasonable to make it easier for the police to get search warrants and it should certainly be made easier for them to search unaccompanied cargo. Such searches can currently be undertaken by Customs and Excise but not, apparently, by the police.
As I said earlier in my speech, and as I said yesterday, the Bill has been prompted solely by the unilateral resumption of terrorism by the Provisional IRA. If it had not ended the ceasefire and if it had not killed people, there would be no need for the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) yesterday raised an important question about what happens if the ceasefire is resumed and there is an end to the violence which is deemed permanent. I was asked that question on the "Today" programme this morning. It seems obvious that if we arrive at a situation where a judgment has been made by the Government and the Opposition that there is a permanent ceasefire and that a peace process is well in hand, there is no need for these measures. I repeat that the measures have been triggered only by the fact that the IRA decided to end the ceasefire. We have, however, tabled a probing amendment which would give a power to the Secretary of State to abrogate the proposed new sections if and when we arrived at the happier situation where there was a working assumption of a permanent peace.
We regret the necessity for the Bill, as I believe the whole House does, but we are satisfied that it is needed and we will not impede its passage today.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) seizes every opportunity to distance himself from my political views, so I make the point as objectively as I can that I believe that many commentators will applaud his position and the points he has made. I hope that few will dissent from joining in that applause.
On 14 March, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was speaking in the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, he made this point:
Governments cannot shrink from deciding whether to take the measures necessary to protect the public from terrorism."-[Official Report, 14 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 1133.]
Conservative Members agreed with him unreservedly.
In his statement yesterday, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that he had discussed with senior police officers
whether there were any additional powers which would strengthen their ability to safeguard the public.
Conservative Members would have criticised him if he had not held such discussions. My right hon. and learned Friend continued by explaining that his proposals, which constitute the Bill, were
designed to meet the real needs that they"—
senior police officers—
have identified … they are necessary changes, which will increase public safety."—[Official Report, 1 April 1996; Vol. 275, c. 35.]


Conservative Members would have condemned the Home Secretary if, the real needs having been identified, he had not sought to implement them, and without delay.
We agree with the Home Secretary because, by any criterion of judgment, Government and Parliament should give the highest priority to ensuring that the police have the powers that are needed to safeguard the public from terrorist activity. I hear the argument of those who object that the Government are moving with excessive speed and unseemly haste. It is understandable that those arguments should be made, but I do not believe that they should carry the day. My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), in his speech on the guillotine motion, stressed that everyone was reluctant to see the guillotine being used. It is not a desirable state of affairs, but given the wider circumstances, we argue that it is the lesser of evils.
In the light of intelligence reports and having ascertained that there are weaknesses in our anti-terrorist legislation, it would be irresponsible and indefensible for the Government not to accelerate through Parliament, by timetabled debates, the measures that are necessary to increase public safety. Likewise, it would be irresponsible of the House to oppose those measures.
It is a proven fact that, during the 18 months of the so-called ceasefire, the IRA not only maintained but improved its operational capability. It recruited, trained and targeted; it further researched and developed improvised weapons; it raised funds to maintain its structures and to enhance its capabilities; and, most significantly, it actively prepared for the resumption of violence. It is, therefore, scarcely surprising that intelligence reports confirm that the IRA is even more active now than it was during the so-called ceasefire. There is every reason for urgency and the Government are right to respond with urgency.
Nor should we overlook a second, albeit lesser, on-going reality—the continuing threat from international terrorism and the need to combat it. Successive prevention of terrorism Acts have been designed to respond to threats from sources other than Northern Ireland and Irish terrorism. The slaughter of the innocents over Lockerbie stands as a bitter reminder of that reality. Less than two years ago, the Israeli embassy and Balfour house were attacked. Last year, 50 per cent. of extensions of detention related to international terrorism. The continuing need for effective and updated legislation is self-evident. Such legislation is essential to enable a free and open democratic society to protect itself against terrorism.
Some hon. Members and others oppose the Bill on the ground that it infringes civil liberties. On the civil liberties theme in general, I counter-argue that they fail to grasp some essential truths. First, as we have heard, the greatest threat to civil liberties comes not from counter-terrorist legislation but from those who believe in the bomb and the bullet and put that belief into practice. Secondly, almost all Governments of free, open, democratic societies have found it necessary to assume greater powers when confronted by people prepared to exploit freedom in their bid to destroy it and deny it to others. Thirdly, our emergency powers seek to maintain a delicate balance. In certain circumstances, they may inconvenience and restrict some people, but they contain

checks and balances that minimise that and provide some safeguards. Fourthly, our counter-terrorist legislation seeks to protect the overwhelming majority from the smallest of all minorities and the evil that it would inflict. The majority understands and accepts the limitations and restrictions demanded by such legislation. Above all, as the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, it is right to err on the side of caution in such matters.
On the specific measures in the Bill, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, there are no new questions of principle. Its principles have been in the public domain for years and have been debated many times. Many people would be surprised to learn that they do not already exist in law. Clause 1 gives power to the police to stop and search the outer garments of pedestrians if an authorisation has been given by a senior police officer, to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, and compensates for a deficiency in the 1989 Act. That power already exists under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991. It is also contained in the new edition of that Act. Given the terrorist threat, it does not undermine civil liberties but promotes them by making it safer for us all to move about our towns and cities.
Clause 2, which enables the police on a warrant to search one or more non-residential premises for the artefacts of terrorism, infringes no civil liberty. It is common sense that the power should be available. Both powers have been well tested in Northern Ireland. The House has approved them there many times. Sadly, they are needed throughout the United Kingdom.
Clause 3, which enables an examining officer to search unaccompanied goods which have arrived in or are about to leave the United Kingdom, is likewise a highly desirable power for the police. One may say that they should have had it many years ago. There is nothing unreasonable or genuinely controversial in those three clauses. The deterrent factor is prominent. The knowledge of their existence is likely to deter terrorist activity. The same applies to clauses 4 and 5. If, in the judgment of senior police officers, practice and experience have shown that the powers and precedent of common law are insufficient and a statutory basis is deemed desirable for cordoning areas and controlling parking, so let it be. There is no valid objection to that.
In the light of the proven threats from the IRA and international terrorism, the Government are surely right to introduce those measures. They are right to do so with urgency and through timetabled debate. The measures are necessary and reasonable. They do not constitute an unacceptable threat to civil liberties and those who claim that they do are simply wrong. I greatly hope that the House will overwhelmingly accept and endorse the Bill.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which will not be subject to proper Parliamentary scrutiny, and whose powers may prove to be counterproductive and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
I was flattered that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) quoted so extensively from my speeches when the Act first went through. I am proud that


he has read my words and found them comforting. I recall that my hon. Friend fought the 1983 general election on a manifesto that supported full restoration of trade union rights, withdrawal from the European Economic Community, unilateral nuclear disarmament and nationalisation of industries that had been denationalised. Doubtless his speeches during the campaign while that was Labour party policy reflected those views.
I understand that there is a possibility that my hon. Friend has changed his mind on those matters. He may have done so for a variety of reasons, such as that he would not be sitting on the Front Bench if he had not. However, I do not challenge his good faith in changing his opinions, because we should be able to realise that we have made mistakes. The mistake that I made was not listening to my friend Tom Litterick, who was then a Member of the House, when the original legislation was going through and he said that we were reacting in panic. He said that we were prepared to do almost anything to protect the Irish population and stop Irish people from being attacked in factories and on the streets, having their windows put in, being thrown through the doors of clubs and being subject to abuse as a terrified British population sought scapegoats in the place of the people who had perpetrated that terrible crime in Birmingham. As a result, all people were being tarred with that odour—if one can be tarred with an odour.
People can take courses of action and change their minds. I have changed my mind about the prevention of terrorism Act for the reasons that I have given over the years. I believe that the balance in this legislation has gone the wrong way. It has been counter-productive. That was shown by the great trawls of the Irish population in London in the 1970s and early 1980s. People were picked up just because they were Irish, taken away, questioned and released without charge. I know how it alienated a whole generation of people who came to this country to be law abiding. They wanted to be good citizens and to work. They wanted to make a way for themselves and their families. It alienated them from the forces of law and order because they thought that they were being unfairly treated and singled out.
I believe that two powers that were contained in that legislation, exclusion orders and the power to detain a person without access to a magistrate for up to seven days, were wrong. I still believe that they are wrong. I have changed my mind.
I have changed my mind also about the Birmingham Six. On one occasion when I was arguing in favour of not renewing the Act, I said—I freely admit this—that the Birmingham Six had been caught by ordinary police methods. That was before all the horrible evidence about how they had been treated came to light. However, where people have been caught, they have generally been caught not by virtue of those powers, but by normal good police work. As that is so, we must look carefully at the sort of powers that we are giving.
I now leave my "Apologia pro Vita Sua"—and, in retrospect, one for my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn too—and turn to the reasoned amendment. We have already dealt with at length, so I shall not repeat to the House, the arguments about the time provided to discuss the Bill and the manner in which it has been introduced. Those arguments stand on the record.
However, I shall take up one point—the claim that less time was given for discussing amendments when the original Act was passed than has been allowed with this Bill. That is not the case. Less time was in fact taken up, but there was no limit on the time that could have been used—whereas here there is a specific and direct time limit for dealing with matters connected with the Bill.
My second point arises from the issue that I raised before—the danger of alienating a generation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn says that the proposed powers are very different from the sus laws. Indeed, judging by the way in which he describes the sus laws, that is correct; nobody doubts it. However, the phrase "the sus laws" has come to have a meaning different from the precise meaning that my hon. Friend used. It was associated with the arbitrary stopping and searching of people.
Clause 1 asks us to support the arbitrary power to stop and search people in a designated area, without giving any reason. My hon. Friend says that the police—because we can all trust the police—would not dispose of their people in an arbitrary fashion to behave in that way. I wish that that were true. I am sure that it would be true when the original decision was taken, but it would not apply to the individual bobby on the beat who took part in the searches.
We know from the cases that come up in the London metropolitan area how such powers have been used. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has already drawn the attention of the House to the disproportionate number of black people in cars who are stopped within the cordons that already exist—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has already accepted.

Mr. Straw: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with some care. If his arguments about section 13B are so strong, they must also have applied to section 13A, which raises exactly the same issues with respect to the occupants of vehicles. So could my hon. Friend explain why, when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was before the House under the usual procedures—its passage took not one day but four months—he raised no objections on any occasion to section 13A?

Mr. McNamara: The answer is simple: examples have now been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North of the way in which section 13A has been used and abused.

Mr. Straw: There is no evidence whatever that section 13A has been abused. The figures that I gave, and those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred, relate to powers contained within ordinary criminal justice legislation, which give the police the power to stop and search people on reasonable suspicion. I have not been made aware—nor, I believe, has my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North—of any evidence of abuse of that power. Indeed, it has been used on only one occasion—following the Canary wharf bomb on 9 February.

Mr. McNamara: I take my hon. Friend's point, but let me carefully explain that we do have evidence that where there has been reasonable suspicion, most people who


have been stopped have been people of Asian or Caribbean background. Within a designated area the police have the power to stop and search people without rhyme or reason. The Home Secretary can, if he wishes, prevent that from happening—but, judging by past evidence, that is unlikely to happen. That is what happens with reasonable suspicion.
Secondly, and more important, young people are the ones who will be stopped—perhaps coming back from a dance or out with their girlfriends or boyfriends—and be subjected to a search. We know from our experience in Northern Ireland that those stop-and-search powers have had an alienating effect on the attitudes of young people from both communities and in both areas to the forces of law and order.
We are creating exactly the same phenomenon that followed the trawls that took place under the terms of the original legislation. We are therefore in a dangerous position. Regardless of the operational reason for the exercise, the ordinary bobby on the street, acting with such powers, may use them to pick up specific people for other reasons. When the Home Secretary was asked yesterday about whether, if evidence of other crimes were found, it would be used, he said yes. Given the proposed powers, the temptation for the police to go in that direction is well understood, and I believe that it would be followed.

Mr. Alun Michael: I think that my hon. Friend is getting confused. He has referred to people being stopped not under the powers in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 but under those in other legislation. So far as I am aware, the powers in the 1994 Act were seen as reassuring, rather than the reverse, by people in London. My hon. Friend alleged that young people would be stopped and subjected to searches, but there is no suggestion that that has happened as a result of section 13A, which was added to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. On what basis does he make that suggestion? He seems to have plucked it out of the air.

Mr. McNamara: On the basis of what has happened in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend should be aware of that. Under the stop-and-search powers in Northern Ireland, it is young people who have been stopped.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend has confirmed that he is getting confused. When we debated what is now the 1994 Act, we raised precisely those issues. I asked during our debates on that Act how we could be reassured that those powers would not be used disproportionately on people from ethnic minorities and on young people. We were given reassurance, and protections were built in. The provisions before us today share the protections and provisions of the 1994 Act, precisely because we raised those issues.

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend, the point that I am making arises from legislation in Northern Ireland, and the effect of the stop-and-search power. That power has not existed in Great Britain, which is why it now appears in the Bill, and why I am drawing the attention of the House to the defect, and its likely consequences.
Finally, I shall deal with the right to establish a cordon. I do not believe that anybody can argue about the other matters in the Bill—the parking restrictions, the power in respect of non-residential buildings, and the power to search non-accompanied cargo. However, a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and the Opposition Chief Whip says that the power in question is designed
to enforce a cordon around a bomb warning area.
It is true that that is part of the power contained in the Bill, but the power goes far wider than that.
Nobody could possibly object to giving the police or anybody else power to establish a cordon around an area where there was a suspected explosive device or to establish one afterwards to protect people or for necessary forensic work to be carried out. But the power goes far wider than those purposes and is
in connection with an investigation into the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism
to which the Act applies, and it can be in relation to any political violence.

Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I simply do not begin to understand my hon. Friend's arguments. Is he seriously suggesting that if the police believe that there has been
the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism"—
which, I remind my hon. Friend, usually results in a loss of life, maiming of innocent people and serious damage—the police should not be entitled to put a cordon around an area for their protection and to further their investigation into who has committed the act?

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend should have listened very carefully to what I said. I said in particular that if there had been a bomb or a device that was likely to go off or had gone off, a cordon was necessary to protect people. I argued that we were examining not just the issue of explosives or immediate danger to limb; the Bill provides a far wider power, and many other powers follow from it, such as authority for searches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked the Home Secretary how, if there is a cordon, we can be certain that it will not be abused by the police and used to avoid getting a warrant to enter premises. The fact is that that necessity can be contravened.
I believe the power goes far beyond the limitations stated by the Home Secretary and by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in their letter to us. The problem is that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I are at cross-purposes, with occasional interjections from the Home Secretary, but we do not have time to explore the matters in detail. Ultimately, my hon. Friend and I may be ad idem on these issues, but the argument that is being made is rather slipshod. The Bill's powers are far wider, far stronger and go far deeper than has been suggested in this debate, and the Bill merits far more consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that some of the powers in the Bill may be contrary to the European convention on human rights. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) asked specifically about that point and was told that, should the statute be ruled out by the convention, common law


would still prevail. I was under the impression that common law could be ruled out by the convention, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to consider that answer satisfactory.
The point has been made that the Bill is a codification of powers. The Government are very uncertain about their position, however, particularly in relation to the provision on cordons. Paragraph 10 of the schedule states:
The powers conferred by this Schedule are additional to any other powers which a constable has either at common law or under or by virtue of any other enactment and are not to be taken to affect any of those other powers.
The Government have suggested that there is some uncertainty about the position in common law. It is their intention to codify it, but, just in case they have gone too far and limited it too much, they intend to maintain the position in common law. That is not good legislation, and it shows the slipshod way in which this matter has been dealt with.
We have been told that the need for the legislation suddenly transpired between last Thursday's Cabinet meeting and today. I do not think it all adds up. I think that much of the legislation has to do with the Government's being in two minds about the issue. The Government have not mentioned an Easter scare or the general security situation, other than references to the continuing threat from the IRA—which is real and live, and which I would not dispute for a moment. It has in fact been my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench who have expressed the need for urgency in supporting the Bill.
Labour Front Benchers have urged on us the belief that something is likely to happen over Easter. We have been told that it will be on our consciences if a life is lost that could have been saved had we passed this legislation. But we were told that the IRA planned, prepared and placed its South Quay bomb months before the announcement of the ceasefire breakdown. That must have been done months in advance. The IRA's planning ability—for which it receives credit from the Government—makes one wonder whether, if there is a major incident this weekend, this legislation will have any effect.
There are now cassette-type bombs that can be carried in coats, but we cannot subject people to intimate searches. If an area is designated, that may prevent people from going into the area, but it will not prevent incidents involving cassette-type bombs from happening elsewhere. I find that argument very strange. If I felt that the power to cordon areas would be effective and that it was necessary and not likely to lead to harassment of individuals or groups—having particular regard to the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) about women and searches and to the technical point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), which might cause problems—I might be prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
I have not been convinced by the Government's reasons for the necessity of this legislation. I do not think that the House should be pressurised into passing a far-reaching measure affecting civil liberties, which is concerned not only with the Irish situation but with terrorism generally, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) pointed out. The Bill will not merely affect London or the home counties; it could apply in Bradford, Leicester or Hull,

where an area could be designated. These powers could be abused because there are no reasonable grounds for considering their operation, not even any semblance of judicial review. The person who has to be satisfied in all these cases will be the same person who felt that the powers were necessary—the Home Secretary. I do not think that it adds up.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: The assumption behind the rather long and rambling speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the police have called for the improvements in the anti-terrorist legislation in order to harass ethnic minority groups or anybody else is too ludicrous for words. The legislation is framed specifically to combat terrorism. It bears no relationship to any law that used to exist and which was used to harass ethnic minorities or anyone else.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) is always at his best when he agrees with us. I seem to remember, however, that when he last agreed with us about the prevention of terrorism legislation that we debated the other day, he ended up abstaining when it came to the vote. I did not hear him say tonight that he intended to vote with us. I hope that we can have some suggestion from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that all his hon. Friend's good, supportive words for the Bill mean that the Labour party will vote with the Government on the Bill.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North once again floated the kite—rather more of a hare—that the terms of the European convention on human rights will be opposed to the Bill. A lot of people here do not care too much what the European Court of Human Rights or the European convention on human rights say about the Bill, but I can reassure him that any legislation that a nation state considers to be important and necessary for the curtailment of terrorism is not opposed by the European convention on human rights.
Legislation does not stop terrorism, but if it gives the police necessary powers, it can help to prevent some terrorism. If it becomes easier to catch terrorists and put them out of harm's way, that can help to deter them.

Mr. Bennett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that when we dealt with the PTA about three weeks ago, the Government had to move an amendment because they had been found to be in breach of the European convention?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: All I can say is that I do not suppose for one moment that the Bill is likely to fall foul of that convention. Even if it did, I do not suppose that anyone in the country would think it at all wrong for us to maintain our position in the face of whatever ruling might be imposed upon us by a foreign court that is not subject to the kind of pressure to restrict terrorism as that faced by us and the rest of the British people.
The House must consider whether the Bill gives the police powers that they do not already have, and powers that they need, and whether the public will be content with such legislation, even if it does mean some inconvenience to honest, decent law-abiding citizens. Quite frankly, I think that the public will be astonished to learn of the lacunae that have caused the Bill to be


[Sir Ivan Lawrence]
introduced. They will be astonished to discover that the police can stop and search any vehicle, driver, passenger or even pedestrian if he or she is carrying a bag, but that they are not allowed to search that person's coat, jacket, shoes or other item for articles connected with terrorism. The British people will want that power to be given to the police, and they will want that power to be given to them now, before it is too late.
The British people will be astonished that the police do not have the power to search non-residential premises, given that they have the right to search residential premises. It is obvious that terrorists can hide away bombs and other articles connected with their miserable trade in lock-up garages under railway arches. The fact that we do not have a law to enable the police to search such premises adequately will be astounding to ordinary people in our society. They want the police to be given that power, and they want them to be given it now.
The public will also be astonished that the police do not have the same powers as customs officers to search unaccompanied container lorries left at ports.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: That is astonishing.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Yes, it is. People will want the police to be given that power now, before it is too late.
The public will also be astonished to learn that the police are not able to cordon off an area while they are looking for a bomb or to impose temporary parking restrictions outside Government buildings and royal buildings. I thought that the police had always had such powers, and it is amazing for us in Parliament, and just as amazing to people outside, to learn that they do not have them. The people will want the police to have those powers now, before it is too late.
If those powers do not exist now, surprisingly and astonishingly, they need to exist, and I am sure that the public will give full-hearted support to them. After all, the protection of citizens and visitors to our country—tourism is an important part of our industry and trade—from death and mutilation is one of the clearest responsibilities of Parliament and has been recognised as such by all responsible parties in the House.
Despite his denial, it must be very embarrassing for the hon. Member for Blackburn that between 30 and 40 of his supporters do not believe that those additional powers are necessary. They would like us to take so long discussing them, day after day, or week after week, or month after month, that the terrorists could get on with exploiting the lacunae in the law in order to bomb more of our territories.
Certain Opposition Members argue that the threat to the civil liberties of the individual outweighs the threat to the civil liberties of the entire nation. That majority, however, has a right to feel safe and to be safe. An Opposition amendment calls for the word "reasonable" to be inserted instead of "expedient"; another that the word "pedestrian" should be followed by the words "or cyclist"; another states that
a constable shall be regarded as in uniform only if his identification number is clearly visible";
and another states:
any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.".
That is all interesting stuff, but not when we are dealing with terrorists who blow people and their property to pieces. I accept that those amendments may be important to some Opposition Members, but they are not important to most people in this country.
I am concerned about civil liberties. All my legal life has been dedicated to them and I do not take any lectures from anyone in the House about the need for civil liberties. But there are civil liberties and civil liberties—[Interruption.] I note that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is getting angry. I wonder why, if he is so supportive of the Bill.

Mr. Michael: This is a pathetic speech.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I can understand the hon. Gentleman being irritated that so many of his colleagues—between 30 and 40 of them—intend to divide the House against the Bill because they think that it is unnecessary. I can understand him being embarrassed. As I said, there are civil liberties and civil liberties, but some civil liberties are more important than others. The civil liberty of the individual's right not to be searched is one thing, but the right of the British public to walk freely in the streets without bombs is the greatest of civil liberties.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has said, it is difficult to see why some Opposition Members can complain that the Bill will infringe civil liberties. The stop-and-search powers can be used only in limited areas and only for 28 days, and then only with the authority of the chief constable or an assistant chief constable. A prosecution can be brought only if the Director of Public Prosecutions says so. Non-residential searches can be carried out only with a magistrate's warrant, if it has been applied for by a superintendent, and it can last for only 24 days. We know that these provisions are useful and that they can work because they work in Northern Ireland—and the only one that has not applied to Northern Ireland will now be applied under the legislation.
The public have a right to expect more protection—and they have a right to expect it now. The police, on our behalf, have a right to expect these powers—and they have a right to expect them now, because they are at the front line of our defences.
I feel sorry for hon. Members who lead for the Opposition because their colleagues have asked questions such as: why are so many people being stopped and so few people being charged? They have a blind spot about the fact that if these pieces of legislation are in place, they are a deterrent to the kind of terrorism and activity that goes on. There is a much more practical side to these provisions than interference with the civil liberties of individuals.

Mr. Gerrard: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir Ivan Lawrence: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Time is short because his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made a long speech.


Who will be most unhappy when the legislation is passed? That question can be answered in only one way: the terrorists. That justifies the legislation.
Let us pray that one day there will be no terrorism and that the need for these powers will disappear. We shall then be able to withdraw the powers when we come to debate the prevention of terrorism legislation, as we do every year. I look forward to that day, and it will come more quickly if we have this legislation. At the moment, we live in sad and dangerous times which make this legislation necessary. Hon. Members must support it: if they do not, they will be betraying the people of this country who sent them to this place.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) expressed astonishment on behalf of the public that all of the powers in the Bill are not already on the statute book. He is a practising lawyer, he is Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee and he is prominent in his party. The Government have been in power for 17 years and they have introduced criminal justice legislation and prevention of terrorism legislation every year, including a Bill three weeks ago. It is therefore a bit much for the hon. and learned Gentleman to express astonishment that these powers are not on the statute book. It has taken the Home Secretary a little time to make up his mind whether the legislation is desirable and he has left the House with almost no time at all to work out whether it is desirable.
I start from the assumption that the IRA is likely to plant a bomb at any time, an assumption that I continued to hold during much of the ceasefire as I am very suspicious about its intentions. None of our security forces should be varied simply because ceasefire discussions are in process; they should be varied only when we perceive that the security threat has diminished. That is the background against which I judge this legislation. I therefore think it quite reasonable that the police should seek to clarify the powers within which they carry out searches, cordons and other activities referred to in the legislation. I insist that, for the most part, these are things that they do now but which they need greater clarity to do.
In the limited time available to us in Committee, we have to ask: does the legislation achieve that purpose? Does it do so with unnecessary restriction on civil liberties? Could it be improved so that it serves its purpose better or so that it places less limitation on civil liberties? Could there be more effective safeguards? Because we believe that the police are right to seek more effective powers and that the Bill represents a reasonable attempt to do that—give or take improvements that we might make—Liberal Democrats will vote in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill; we shall not abstain.
I refer to the specific features of the Bill. The stop-and search-power is restrictive—it needs to be authorised for a given area and it is limited to 28 days. The worry is that it is not related to the belief that any individual being searched is carrying materials likely to lead to a terrorist act. When one creates a cordon or tries to deal with a situation in which one expects a bomb to be brought into an area, one has to search a large number of people who one knows very well are not likely to be carrying it. One has to carry out a general search in those circumstances. It is important to be clear that one does that only if there

is an apprehension that a bomb is likely to be brought into the area, on the basis of intelligence information or something of that kind. General searching would not otherwise be justified.
There are then powers for a general search of non-residential premises on a magistrate's warrant. Such searches must be exercised with care as it would be seriously counter-productive to lead an entire community to believe that it is being targeted because a warrant is issued to search every garage in the area. On the whole, the public are very supportive of that type of activity—indeed, they are pleased to see the police making a careful check—but the power might be counter-productively used in some circumstances and should therefore be exercised with care.
Obviously, something should be done to give powers to deal with goods on an aircraft or ship not carried by a passenger, but some of the provisions are slightly worrying. For example, subsection (2) of clause 3 creates an offence of seeking
to frustrate the object of … a search".
I can imagine the fury that would be generated in the luggage collection area of an airport if passengers were unsure whether their luggage had been delayed by the baggage handlers, the airline or a security firm searching it on behalf of the police. I have seen irate people complain vigorously to airline staff in those circumstances. If they are then told, "Any more cheek like that and you will be charged with seeking to frustrate the object of a search," relations between the police and public might be impaired. I am therefore worried about the formulation of that offence.
There are also anxieties about precisely who in Scotland is authorised to use reasonable force in seeking to carry out a search. It appears on the face of the Bill—my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) will wish to refer to this if we are allowed to reach that point in Committee—that persons who are not police officers will be authorised in Scotland to use reasonable force when carrying out a search. That will include persons who are not trained in the restrained use of force, and it needs to be clarified.
Clause 4 and the schedule, which deal with cordons, are very sweeping. They allow cordons to be maintained for 14 days, and on extension for 28 days, which is far more than one is accustomed to in these circumstances. Police cordons are usually of fairly short duration. They present problems, and must be handled carefully.
A school party from my constituency came down to London and visited me the other week, when there was a bomb in the west end. They were in a café having a cup of tea. They were all evacuated from the café6, but the teacher had great difficulty persuading the police—indeed, I believe that she did not succeed—that she should be allowed to collect one of the girls, who had gone to the toilet. So they were faced with the possibility of all being evacuated from the café, leaving one bewildered girl in the toilet of an empty café in a strange capital city, with no one from whom to find out where to go. Those powers need to be exercised with considerable care.

Dr. Robert Spink: indicated dissent.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman, who claims to be a parliamentary private secretary, shakes his head. Does he not realise that young people and children are especially vulnerable in such circumstances?


The provisions about parking appear obvious and sensible for most people, but we must consider the position of someone who might be required to move a car when he would be placing himself in danger, or believed that he would be placing himself in danger, in order to do so. If a police officer tells someone, "Go and move that car because we think that there is a bomb in the car next to it," the person concerned is in a position to say, "I would rather see my car go up than go up with it." The use of that power needs to be clarified, as does its use in relation to disabled people.
It is not clear what other police forces are involved. I was surprised that the Home Secretary appeared to say that every private police force in the country, including those run by private enterprise organisations such as ports, will be brought within the ambit of the Bill. It does not say so on the face of the Bill. Indeed, the only definition of police officers in the Bill is in clause 5, which refers to police officers
of a force maintained for any other police
force area. That does not sound to me like the Tilbury docks police or even the Royal Parks constabulary.
Those are illustrations of the problems of dealing in haste and without a proper Committee stage with a very technical Bill. That is why we should have more time and why the Committee stage should have been set out with time for each clause. We nevertheless believe that the Bill should have a Second Reading and we shall vote accordingly. We will therefore vote against the amendment declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill.

Mr. David Wilshire: Both the Bill and the procedures that we are using raise two separate issues, and there are two distinct ways of looking at both. One can either look at those issues in a detached philosophical way and have a debate about the theory of such things as civil rights, or one can look at them in a personally involved way and have a debate about how to protect innocent people.
I make no apology for looking at the Bill in a personally involved way, because I feel personally involved. Along with all others in the House and outside the House who are caught up in Northern Ireland affairs, it crosses my mind from time to time that I too might be a terrorist target. It is hardly surprising, when someone thinks like that—and thousands of people do—that such people feel personally involved and, when it comes to debates of this type, place public safety first, before all other matters.
I also feel involved on behalf of my constituents. Hon. Members should remember that Spelthorne residents have seen terrorism at first hand. They have seen mortars fired from the edge of a housing estate in Stanwell on to the runways of Heathrow airport and they have seen mortars fired from outside my constituency into the part of the airport that is located within it. Thank God none of those mortars exploded. It is hardly surprising that my constituents also feel personally involved and seek to put public safety first in the debate.
I shall give the House another example of my constituents' involvement in the debate. Only last week, when a group of children and teachers from an infant

school in my constituency came to Downing street to receive an award and to celebrate and enjoy themselves, worried parents sought reassurance from the head teacher about the terrorist threat in Whitehall. It is hardly surprising that my constituents feel personally involved in the situation and want to see public safety put above all other considerations. It makes the protection of life and limb a prime duty of the House at all times and a particular duty when considering the legislation tonight. Therefore, I approach every part of the Bill and of the procedure with that in mind.
If one feels personally involved in an issue such as this, it colours how one looks at philosophical issues such as civil liberties. I shall explain how I approach it and how I believe that my constituents deal with the question of civil liberties. I am proud to live in a liberal democracy; I am proud that our society is founded on the rule of law and is underpinned by a belief in the supremacy of individual human rights. I defer to no one and I shall take lectures from no one regarding my commitment to those fundamental principles: the most fundamental of which is the individual right to life—the very principle that the terrorists challenge at every turn.
If we believe that, we dare not overlook one of the weaknesses of the high-minded, principled approach. If societies use such principles to run their normal affairs, they find it very difficult to handle those who seek to undermine the fabric and the principles upon which the societies are based. The people who seek to undermine those principles often view those very principles as a weakness. Therefore, they treat them with contempt and they do not accept, as the rest of us do, that we should be bound by a common respect for civil liberties and for human rights.
I believe that that is the practical challenge confronting those who wish to philosophise—as we have heard tonight—and who want to focus on general civil liberties. Terrorists do not respect civil rights. That fact is evidenced by the spate of murders that occurred in Northern Ireland over Christmas. On those occasions, we are told that Sinn Fein-IRA decided to conduct investigations, but it did not tell anyone what it discovered—there goes the first civil right. Sinn Fein-IRA then decided to act and to behave as judge and jury based upon its investigations. It gave the people whom it decided to judge not a moment in which to defend themselves nor any right of appeal—there go more civil rights. Sinn Fein-IRA acted as the executioner as well as the judge and the jury, giving people no chance for redress or to be heard before they were murdered. Where is the civil liberty in that action? How can we treat people like that in the same way as we treat others going about their daily lives?
I judge that those evil people place themselves outside normal society and deny themselves the privileges that membership of such a society confers on the rest of us. The vast majority of those whom I represent willingly accept that if effectively dealing with those evil people involves the temporary inconvenience of the rest of us or the temporary interruption of some of our rights, so be it. That is the public view. We are quite prepared to pay that price to maintain life and limb.
I turn briefly to the two issues that are raised by the business before the House—the need for five new powers and the speed of enactment. Let me deal first with the five new powers. I suspect that there is little need to say much


more because every twist and every turn has been explored by the exchanges between Labour Members and it ill becomes me intrude on the private grief of the Labour party as it tries to sort itself out.
I judge that four of the five powers do not raise significant civil liberties issues. In regard to searching freight, customs officers do it and I am amazed to discover that the police cannot. Setting up cordons and placing restrictions on parking are probably covered by the common law, as I understand it, but if they are not, they should be placed on a statutory footing—we are not seeking to change anything, only to clarify it. As for searching premises, it is a nonsense if, after a terrorist has killed himself in a bomb explosion on a bus, the police are entitled to search his home and the homes of his friends, but do not have the power to search the non-residential premises where terrorist weapons and explosives may have been stored. If that is the position, the quicker we sort it out, the better.
Only the fifth power—the searching of pedestrians—needs a little more exploration. Anybody who has witnessed what, sadly, we see every day of the week—the vehicle and occupant searches in the streets around the Palace of Westminster—will know only too well what is involved. It is entirely proper that we should spend a moment or two asking ourselves whether we want to inflict that experience on pedestrians as well as on the occupants of vehicles.
I conclude quite simply that given the sophistication of today's terrorist and the ability to conceal items in a coat or jacket pocket rather than in a vehicle, and given the loopholes in the law that have been identified, it is total nonsense to contemplate continuing to allow the police to search vehicles and their occupants, but not to search pedestrians. I understand only too well the concerns that have been expressed by Labour Members, but I am reassured—as I understand are Labour Front-Bench Members—by the safeguards that have been spelt out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and others. Given those safeguards and the current position, I believe that the fifth power is indeed necessary.
Finally, let me turn to the legislative haste. It would help to reassure the House if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), could say a little more about the reasons for that haste. As someone who is closely involved in Northern Ireland affairs, I suspect that the explanation for that lies in the confidential security briefings given to a select and privileged few and not shared with the remainder of us. Can my hon. Friend confirm that inquiries following the Canary wharf and Aldwych bombs led directly to the Bill? Although I do not want or expect anyone to give us the full details in public, it would help the House if my hon. Friend could confirm that the new security information that has come to light in the past few weeks has made it imperative that we act before Easter.
It gives me no pleasure to support this Bill, nor do I enjoy using procedures of this sort. But I have absolutely no doubt where my priorities lie. They are these: to seek the safety and security of the innocent citizens of this country, and to put them above all else. Faced with a clear, renewed threat from those who are prepared to kill and maim in the furtherance of their twisted ideology, faced by evil people who despise democracy and who are prepared to treat civil liberties with contempt, and faced

with clear advice that extra powers are needed now, I arrive at the simple conclusion that this House has no choice but to act swiftly and decisively.

Mr. David Trimble: As has been said a number of times today, we in the Ulster Unionist party will be supporting the Bill. Most of it applies to England and Wales, but we particularly welcome clause 3, which extends to Northern Ireland. The terms of clause 3 remind me of the incident in the summer of 1994, just before the ceasefire, when a large bomb was intercepted at Heysham, en route, we believe, to London—possibly to Canary wharf. It was larger than the one that went off in Canary wharf on 9 February. That clearly underlines the need for the relevant power to be clarified.
The power already exists for Customs and Excise to search goods in transit, but the Bill clearly gives the police in all parts of the United Kingdom the power to act too. That is wholly appropriate.
Although we support the Bill, we take the view that, if anything, it does not go far enough. There is a need for more comprehensive legislation on a UK basis. That becomes apparent when we reflect on what happened with the bomb at Canary wharf. While we cannot know for certain—there is an element of supposition in what I am about to say—the signs are that the bomb that went off there was constructed by a small team in the IRA based on what it calls its GHQ units, with persons drawn from its England department—people located in the Republic of Ireland, some of Northern Ireland origin but all domiciled in the Republic and operating from there.
The bomb was made by a small, tightly knit group composed of these elements and then loaded on to a truck which had been the subject of some engineering work in the Republic. It was then run through Northern Ireland, southern Scotland and England to London, where it was primed and put in position.
Bearing in mind this sequence of events and the fact that there was no intelligence warning before the bomb went off, there are certain questions that need to be asked. First, why was there no intelligence warning? Part of the answer lies in the way in which the IRA operated. It did not involve people domiciled in Northern Ireland because it rightly believed that, were it to do so, the security forces in Northern Ireland would have got wind of what was going on. So it operated purely inside the Republic, where the Irish police missed what was going on. We have reason to believe that they missed it partly because they had ceased surveillance of key IRA personnel during the ceasefire in response to the act of faith on the part of the Irish Government that the ceasefire would be permanent. That led to a relaxation of vigilance.
There are lessons to be drawn from this. The bombers ignored the administrative and legal boundaries in the United Kingdom. The bomb went off in London but started its life south of the border in the Republic of Ireland; and its movement through the United Kingdom involved not just Northern Ireland and Scotland, but I know not how many police force areas in England and Wales. That is a reason for us to reconsider why we have so many administrative and legal boundaries.
There is not much sense now in maintaining a separate anti-terrorist code in Northern Ireland and one in the rest of the United Kingdom. The terrorists do not recognise


those boundaries and we should not be limited by them. That underlines the reason for a single Act covering Northern Ireland. When I suggested that in my question on the statement yesterday, the Home Secretary rightly referred to the Lloyd review, but the review's terms of reference direct it to consider the legislation that would be necessary on the basis that the peace was permanent. We now know that the peace is not permanent, so the existence of the Lloyd review may not be a good reason to fail to consider what is needed by way of comprehensive legislation throughout the United Kingdom.
I bear in mind also the valid point made by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) a couple of years ago when the first major bombs occurred in London. The right hon. Gentleman called for a single Cabinet Minister to be responsible for the anti-terrorist drive throughout the United Kingdom. We need to reconsider that point.
The circumstances of Canary wharf again underline the need for effective surveillance, especially in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic's capability is limited, partly by lack of resources. I notice that recently, after the middle eastern bombs, the United States Government have made available substantial sums of money to enhance the capability of the Israeli Government in bomb detection and surveillance. That is an interesting precedent. I know that the United Kingdom Government have in the past offered similar assistance to the Irish Government which, for a variety of reasons, they have refused. Perhaps one might suggest to the Government of the United States that they might make an offer to the Irish Government that they could not refuse. Such an approach might be fruitful.

Mr. William Ross: Does my hon. Friend agree that his latter comment is given added force by the fact that the Government of the Irish Republic have recently had to move so many police officers to the border to prevent the smuggling of cattle as a result of the BSE scare and, therefore, their need for financial and other assistance from the United States is even greater than it was 10 days ago?

Mr. Trimble: That is an interesting comment by my hon. Friend and it could give rise to a number of comments about the exertions of the Irish authorities to ensure that their cattle are not affected in comparison with their comparative lack of exertion to protect the lives of human beings in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Soley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to win support from people in this country, it is important that he understands that attacks of that type on the Irish are totally counter-productive, not least because the Irish Government and the Irish people spend more per head of the population on the fight against terrorism than the British people. The Irish Government do that not least because they have put immense effort into trying to defeat terrorism that was born and bred in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the point that I was making. I think his comment was quite inaccurate. I hope that he will read Hansard tomorrow to see what I have said. If he considers

Hansard carefully, he will see that it was not accurate of him to characterise what I have said as an attack on the Irish people. When he makes the point about the involvement in anti-terrorist activity and the greater burden on the resources of the Irish Government, that merely reinforces the point that I made earlier about the need to enhance their capability. If the Irish Government are not prepared to accept assistance from the United Kingdom Government, perhaps they would accept assistance from other sources.

Mr. Soley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trimble: No, I shall not give way again because time is limited. I have replied to the hon. Gentleman's point and, having done that, I shall continue.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend agree that during the so-called peace and truce there was mortar bomb testing in County Monaghan and nobody was apprehended for it?

Mr. Trimble: Yes, indeed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Trimble: No, I will not. I am sorry, but time is limited and the winding-up speeches must begin shortly. I have given undertakings in that respect which I shall struggle to maintain.
However, I wish to make one final comment about the Irish Republic which is interesting in this context. Comment has been made about infringement of civil liberties, and people have mentioned the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. At the moment in the Irish Republic, what is called the right to silence is being widely questioned at many levels in southern society, and restrictions on that right similar to those that were introduced here may be applied there. The Home Secretary may be interested to learn that the Irish Government propose to introduce a power to detain suspected drug traffickers for up to seven days. If the Irish Government have found a way to reconcile that with the European convention on human rights, the Home Secretary might like to follow their example so that we shall no longer need the Brophy derogation.
Since the Aldwych bombing in which the bomber was killed, there has been a pause in IRA activity here. That incident undermines the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who said that security force action provoked people and led them to join the IRA. I wonder how that happened in connection with an inhabitant of the small town of Gorey in County Wexford, who was not subject at any time to oppressive behaviour by the British or Irish security forces. However, that is by the way.
The pause since the Aldwych explosion may be due to the fact that finds of explosive material have disrupted the IRA's capability and it needs time to sort out whatever led to the premature explosion and to restock with equipment. However, there are signs that the pause will end. I understand that IRA units in Northern Ireland which have been restive because of inactivity since the declared end of the ceasefire are being told by their leaders that the violence will continue in London first and that they


will then endeavour to provoke loyalists in Northern Ireland, thus leading to a more general resumption of violence. Consequently, greater vigilance in the nation's capital will save lives not only in London but perhaps in Ulster. That is an added reason for our support for the legislation.
Of course we say to those involved in loyalist organisations that, no matter what the provocation, they must show utter and complete restraint. Nothing should be allowed to divert the security forces from the need to maintain order. What happened at Canary wharf and at the Aldwych and other circumstances underline the need to protect not only the targets here but to go to the source and consider ways and means by which we can be more effective in preventing bombs being moved from the areas where they are constructed.

Mr. Alun Michael: In their contributions, most hon. Members sought to deal with the Bill sensibly and reasonably. The only exceptions were the partisan comments of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) and the ill-judged contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), which must have been particularly embarrassing for the Home Secretary, who has not been partisan in dealing with the measure.
I have sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire): that fear and concern is shared by his ordinary constituents. I have shared that experience because a grandmother attended my surgery last week to ask whether it was safe for her grandchildren to have a day trip in London. We need to offer as much reassurance and protection as we can to ordinary people who have such fear.
I say to the hon. Member for Spelthorne that we must take care because balance is required in providing new powers to the police and other authorities. Our case is simply that we are satisfied with the restrictions that were put in place by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and which apply here. I was greatly involved in the Committee that scrutinised that measure. I seem to have been kept busy on many Bills introduced by the Home Secretary over the past few years. He will know that each of those Bills was carefully scrutinised and challenged in Committee. We try to explore the Government's intentions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, in examining the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill we were satisfied, following discussions, that it struck the right balance between the exercise of its powers and the limits that were placed on them to prevent their misuse by the police. That is different from the conditions that existed under the sus laws, as my hon. Friend rightly said.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made a thoughtful contribution about the problems across the different parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. His speech went well beyond the scope of the Bill. The House will have to return to what he said in due course, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down that path now.
What underlies our debate is that people throughout Great Britain have been shocked and appalled by the return to violence. Without that, we should not be faced

with our current serious dilemma—the balance between protecting civil liberties in a free society and protecting the safety, liberty and rights of innocent members of the public. We have sought to get that balance right, which is why we support the Bill.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman said that he supported the Bill. Will he therefore condemn the 40-odd Opposition Back Benchers who wish to defy him? Does he not agree that their defiance would send a very unfortunate message to those who want to be protected from terrorism, and could constitute an invitation that might be little short of disastrous?

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady should not follow the partisan line taken by her hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton. I think that the public will understand what is happening today perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has made our position absolutely clear. If there is any embarrassment, it has been created by petty partisan contributions such as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. There are always hon. Members on both sides of the House who raise issues that are different from those raised by Front Benchers, but important points have been raised, and assurances sought, by Opposition Members who have engaged in a reasonable debate, and it is to their points that I seek to respond.
In general, the Bill clarifies the law and expands on certain aspects of the 1994 Act, rather than introducing draconian new powers. I was surprised by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), which seemed rather confused. His speech on 28 November 1974, which was referred to earlier, made exactly the point that I am making about the need for strong measures balanced with appropriate safeguards. In his speech today, he predicted that young people would be stopped and searched. I see no justification for that prediction in the Bill as it stands, or any indication that—as he seemed to suggest—members of ethnic minorities have been stopped and searched to a disproportionate extent as a result of the provisions of the 1994 Act. There have been other provisions, and on occasion the police have used their powers in a way that has seemed to affect young people or ethnic minorities disproportionately; that is appalling when it happens, but it does not appear to have happened as a result of the 1994 Act, and I do not think it likely that it will happen as a result of this Bill.
Hon. Members have expressed realistic fears about the way in which police powers may be misused unless the right protections are built in. The police need genuine, meaningful powers to intervene when necessary, and those powers must be protected by mechanisms to preclude their misuse. That is what we want; it is what the police want; it is what the public want; and, I believe, it is what the Home Secretary wants, because that is the sort of point on which he has given us assurances. The public have a right to expect the Home Secretary and the House to get the balance right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) referred to the powers of non-territorial police forces. I am always slightly unsure how to refer to them—whatever phrase is used seems to leave someone out—but an example is the powers of the British


Transport police between stations, rather than on railway property. We drew attention to that anomaly during the passage of the Bill that became the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994, and sought to correct it, suggesting that the British Transport police should have the powers of a constable but should exercise them in the support of the local police, or under the supervision of the local police, in such circumstances. That anomaly is not a matter for this Bill, but it must be tackled at some point.
My hon. Friend also referred to the parks police and others. I hope that the Minister will clarify the position. My understanding is that the Bill's powers are in the hands of the territorial forces, headed by the Commissioners of Police of the Metropolis and the City of London police and chief constables of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, and not by specialised forces. In general it seems inappropriate for specialised forces to have such powers. I make that point in particular because, in debating the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, we found that the long list of police forces included such organisations as the Barnet dog catchers. If we extended the powers beyond the territorial police forces, we would therefore get into difficult territory. It would help if the Home Secretary would clarify the powers.
A number of points appropriate to Second Reading were made by a number of my hon. Friends in the debate on the guillotine motion, which was opposed by the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists. I hope to reassure them by supplementing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn.
Let us consider the powers in the Bill. Clause 1 confers the power to stop pedestrians and search anything carried by them. It extends only to the searching of outer garments. Surely that is not a massive and draconian extension of the powers available to the police.
I can understand how, on first reading the Bill in isolation from the legislation that it amends, my hon. Friends could have come to a different conclusion, but if they read the Bill, the earlier debate and the legislation that it amends, I cannot see how they can conclude that the power is extreme or draconian. It is also subject to the limitations in the existing legislation.
Clause 2 refers to the search of non-residential premises. We all know from our constituencies that garages are often built in rows. It is unreasonable under the present legislation that permission has to be given to search individual premises when there is a more general fear about the use of a collection of premises. That power is hardly major and draconian either.
Clause 3 relates to unaccompanied goods arriving in or about to leave Great Britain or Northern Ireland. With the decline of the capacity of the powers of customs to deal with many cargoes coming into or going out of the United Kingdom—we have certainly seen worrying signs of that in places such as Cardiff Wales airport—it is surely right that the powers, to which clause 3 refers, should be strengthened, as the Bill proposes.
Clause 4 gives the police power to establish a temporary cordon in a police area. The requirements mirror some of those in previous legislation because they require a senior officer to decide that it is expedient to make use of the powers. Clause 4(3) limits it to applying to acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
On the leaving of vehicles on particular premises, I am reminded of sitting in my office, which was then in Old Palace yard, and seeing the van that was used in Parliament street to attack No. 10 Downing street. We are not therefore talking about things that have never happened. Nor are we talking about things that are remote from our experiences in the House. It is reasonable that there should be such powers to tackle danger on occasions when there is seen to be danger.
We have tabled amendments that may encourage the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary to reassure us about the sensitivity with which the powers will be used and of the Home Secretary's expectations of the way in which the police will exercise them. It is surely in the best interests of the public and of the police that the powers are exercised reasonably, rationally and with sensitivity, and every chief police officer would agree with that. The chief officers with whom my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I have discussed the issues certainly agree with that in relation to this Bill and other terrorism measures.
I assure my hon. Friends who have expressed concern about the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn and I are no less concerned than they are that the limitations on the liberty of the individual and of the public should not be constrained any more than is necessary to give the police the powers that they need to protect the public against those who have no respect for civil liberties or the rights of the individual. In that balanced way, we believe that we are right not to place obstacles in the way of the Home Secretary as he seeks to speed through the House a measure that makes reasonable additions to the powers of the police in dealing with these matters.

Mr. Howard: We have had a constructive and helpful Second Reading debate. As I have made clear, these are clear and practical measures—they are not revolutionary, but they are necessary. The police believe that and I do so too. If it is too optimistic to hope that all quarters of the House believe it, I hope that at least the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will do so.
My aim has been to meet the real needs of the police, as they have been put to me in my discussions with them in the wake of the South Quay bomb. I have also been careful to consider what safeguards are needed to prevent the risk of misuse, and the combination of authorisation by senior officers, limitations of duration and geographical extent and annual scrutiny and renewal of the rest of the Act provide the necessary assurance. We all recognise that the stop and search of pedestrians is the most sensitive issue, so the power is subject to confirmation or alteration by the Secretary of State.
We have endeavoured to strike the right balance between the powers necessary for the police to do the job that we ask them to do and the freedom of the citizen to go about his business without interference. I hope that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will agree that we have got the balance right. I was grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who, in a robust speech, rightly identified the important part that these powers can play. I am sorry that I missed some of the other speeches, but I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth


(Mr. Michael) that the interesting speech made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) raised a number of points to which we will have to return in due course, but they are not for this evening.
I was grateful for the attitude taken to the powers by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It is important—as I have urged before on many occasions—that as united a signal as possible goes out from the House to show that we are resolved to meet the terrorist threat. I believe that the greater the extent to which we can achieve that unity, the more impressive the signal will be. It is therefore somewhat disappointing that we have not been able to achieve complete unity in our deliberations.
I am sorry that I missed the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but I understand that he repeated some of the points that he made in his speech on the timetable motion and in interventions on my speech and on those of other hon. Members.
I understand that these powers inevitably give rise to concerns. They are, in common with all the powers that we take under the prevention of terrorism Act, exceptional powers. They are powers that are needed exceptionally to meet an exceptional threat.
We recognise that in some instances the legislation gives powers to the police that go beyond what they would require or would be given by Parliament in the normal course of their duties of maintaining law and order and combating crime. We have always recognised that; it was recognised from the outset of the prevention of terrorism legislation. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Blackburn pointed out rather effectively, that point was recognised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North during debates on the need for the powers in the original substantive legislation.
Even though people have not always maintained the same position over the years in relation to this legislation, there has been a wide measure of support for it. Against that wide measure of support—against that background—we have introduced the Bill this evening. Although concerns continued to be expressed during our deliberations, even those who expressed them recognised that some attempt has been made to insert the necessary safeguards to try to ensure that the powers are exercised responsibly.

Mr. Beith: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: I am glad to see a nod of assent to that proposition from the right hon. Gentleman, whose speech I was sorry to miss. I understand that he said in that speech that he would support the Bill on Second Reading.
We are still somewhat on tenterhooks to know what attitude the official Opposition will take when we go into the Division Lobbies, if there is a Division on Second Reading, because we do not quite know whether the Labour party will abstain or vote in favour of the Bill in that event.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: We would like to know.

Mr. Howard: Indeed, as my hon. and learned Friend points out, we would like to know.
I have paid tribute to the hon. Member for Blackburn on more than one occasion this evening; I hope that I have not embarrassed him unduly by doing so. It is difficult to see, in the light of his speech and the speech by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, how Labour could do anything other than come into the Lobby with the Government if there is a Division on Second Reading. I do not believe that any other course would remotely make sense.

Mr. Mackinlay: indicated assent.

Mr. Howard: If hon. Members are still weighing up how to vote and what action to take at that point, they may derive some comfort from the nods given to that proposition by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) and others who clearly agree that the only approach consistent with the observations made by the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Cardiff, South and Penarth is to vote with the Government, if we have a vote on Second Reading. I am sure that there will be a vote and I think that there is unanimity about the proposition that I have just advanced. I see, however, no vigorous nods of assent from the hon. Members for Blackburn and for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and they show no great disposition to answer the question posed by me and my hon. Friends.
I was sorry to have missed the speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). I am sure that I would not have shared the view of the speech by my hon. and learned Friend that was expressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. Although the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and I are old sparring partners, even I draw back from taking issue with him about the contents of a speech that I did not hear. I shall not take up the cudgels with the view that he expressed, although I am certain that if I had heard my hon. and learned Friend's speech I would not have agreed with the hon. Gentleman's strictures.
The Government's job is to safeguard the ability of law-abiding citizens to go about their business in peace. The terrorist strikes directly at that prime responsibility. It must be our duty to take every reasonable measure to frustrate the terrorist's plans and to bring him to justice. As has been said, that may sometimes mean some inconvenience to the public, which we all regret. There can be few people who would object to some occasional inconvenience if that is the price of tightening the screw on terrorists who threaten disruption. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) earlier and I endorse it.

Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best guarantee that the House has that these powers will be exercised responsibly is the sheer professionalism and training of the British police service? The public have every right to expect a professional approach to the exercise of the powers.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. His point is very important because it illustrates that some of the concerns that have been expressed by the Opposition are somewhat remote from reality and have not given credit to or taken into account precisely those qualities of


[Mr. Howard]
the police to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The police would have nothing to gain from exercising the powers with anything other than the circumspection and sensitivity to which I referred when I made my statement yesterday. The police have exercised the powers that are available to them under the prevention of terrorism Act with that circumspection and sensitivity. They are entitled to some praise and credit from the House for the way in which they have exercised those powers. I am certain that they will exercise the additional powers, if they are granted by Parliament, in the same way.
The Bill will not prevent all acts of terrorism, but if it prevents one it will have been worth putting on the statute book. If it disrupts terrorists' plans, it will be worth while. If it strengthens the hand of the police in protecting the public and bringing terrorists to justice, it will be welcome to every law-abiding citizen. I ask the House with some confidence to give it a Second Reading.

Question put, that the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 21, Noes 244.

Division No. 94]
[9.58 pm

AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McGrady, Eddie


Barnes, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Madden, Max


Bennett, Andrew F
Mallon, Seamus


Canavan, Dennis
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Pike, Peter L


Cohen, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Wise, Audrey


Lewis, Terry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Neil Gerrard and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alexander, Richard
Burns, Simon


Alton, David
Burt, Alistair


Amess, David
Butcher, John


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Butler, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Carttiss, Michael


Ashby, David
Cash, William


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Chidgey, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Clappison, James


Bates, Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Batiste, Spencer
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
Coe, Sebastian


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Congdon, David


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Couchman, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cran, James


Body, Sir Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Booth, Hartley
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Bowis, John
Devlin, Tim


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brandreth, Gyles
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bright, Sir Graham
Dunn, Bob





Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
McLoughlin, Patrick


Elletson, Harold
Maddock, Diana


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Maginnis, Ken


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Major, Rt Hon John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Faber, David
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fabricant, Michael
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Merchant, Piers


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Forth, Eric
Moate, Sir Roger


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Gallie, Phil
Nelson, Anthony


Garnier, Edward
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Nicholls, Patrick


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gorst, Sir John
Norris, Steve


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Ottaway, Richard


Grylls, Sir Michael
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Paice, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Hannam, Sir John
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hargreaves, Andrew
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Hawkins, Nick
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hawksley, Warren
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hicks, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rendel, David


Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robathan, Andrew


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jessel, Toby
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


King, Rt Hon Tom
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sproat, Iain


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Steen, Anthony


Lidington, David
Stephen, Michael


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stern, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stewart, Allan


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sumberg, David


McCrea, The Reverend William
Sweeney, Walter


MacKay, Andrew
Sykes, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)






Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Watts, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Thomason, Roy
Whittingdale, John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Wilkinson, John


Trimble, David
Willetts, David


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Walden, George
Wolfson, Mark


Walker, Bill (N Tayside)
Wood, Timothy


Wallace, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Waller, Gary



Ward, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Derek Conway.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 18.

Division No. 95]
[10.10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alton, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Beggs, Roy
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Booth, Hartley
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boswell, Tim
Field, Barry (Isle Of Wight)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bowis, John
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
French, Douglas


Burns, Simon
Gallie, Phil


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chidgey, David
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clappison, James
Grylls, Sir Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Congdon, David
Hargreaves, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Harris, David


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren


Cran, James
Heald, Oliver





Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hicks, Robert
Powell, William (Corby)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Rendel, David


Horam, John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Richards, Rod


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Riddick, Graham


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robathan, Andrew


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jenkin, Bernard
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jessel, Toby
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Sir Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sims, Roger


Kirkhope, Timothy
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Soames, Nicholas


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spring, Richard


Leigh, Edward
Sproat, Iain


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Stanely, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


Luff, Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Streeter, Gray


McCrea, The Reverend William
Sumberg, David


MacKay, Andrew
Sweeney, Walter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sykes, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maddock, Diana
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maginnis, Ken
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Thomason, Roy


Major, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marland, Paul
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Trimble, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Trotter, Neville


Merchant, Piers
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Walden, George


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Moate, Sir Roger
Wallace, James


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Waller, Gary


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Ward, John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Waterson, Nigel


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whittingdale, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Norris, Steve
Wilkinson, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Willetts, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wilshire, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Paice, James
Wolfson, Mark


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Patnick, Sir Irvine



Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Roger Knapman.






NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
McNamara, Kevin


Barnes, Harry
Madden, Max


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mallon, Seamus


Bennett, Andrew F
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Canavan, Dennis
Sedgemore, Brian


Cohen, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wise, Audrey


Lewis, Terry



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. Neil Gerrard.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the whole House, pursuant to Order [this day].

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1

POWER TO STOP AND SEARCH PEDESTRIANS

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 36, page 1, line 6, after '(1)' insert—
`Subject to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (11) or otherwise,'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 47, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'cause' and insert 'obtain the approval of'.
No. 48, in page 2, line 15, leave out from 'State' to `given' in line 16 and insert 'before it is'.
No. 52, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(11) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers contained in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used.'.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to move the amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. Friends. The purpose of amendment No. 36 is to provide the type of reassurance that we have sought in supporting the legislation as to the way in which the powers will be exercised. I hope that the Minister will welcome that opportunity, as the amendment addresses some of people's understandable concerns about the way in which such legislation may be used.
It is always possible to misuse legislation, but Parliament's intention must be clear, as must the safeguards that are built into the various Acts to which I referred during Second Reading. Amendment No. 36 would make the power outlined in clause 1 exercisable, subject to guidance issued by the Home Secretary. Clause 1 extends the powers already available under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 to the searching of pedestrians, and contains also the narrower power to stop pedestrians and search anything carried by them.
Amendment No. 36 acts as a hook for amendment No. 52, which says:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and such other persons or bodies as he deems appropriate, issue guidance on the sensitivity with which the powers in section 13A and this section should be exercised and the circumstances in which the powers should be used.
The amendment raises a number of important issues, including the matter of consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers. Chief police officers and superintendents, who often oversee operational matters and are sensitive to the needs of the area in which they have oversight of police officers, are increasingly sensitive about the downside of certain powers and the dangers when those powers are perceived by members of the public as being used in an inappropriate way.
It seems to me that chief police officers, superintendents of police and the police generally will welcome an assurance from the Home Secretary that it is his intention to consult them and to listen to them about the ways in which the powers contained in the Bill are used. The amendment would also give him the power to issue guidance on the sensitivity that should be shown in the use of the powers in section 13A as well as their extension in the Bill. Finally, the amendment would allow the Home Secretary to give clear guidance on the circumstances in which the powers should be used.
The Home Secretary has stated—in the Chamber today and yesterday and in seeking to win support for the Bill—that it is his intention that the powers should be used firmly when they are needed, but with sensitivity and in a balanced way. It is important that we achieve that balance. We all want the police to act as quickly as possible when there is a threat to public safety or when certain suspicious circumstances require police action, but we also want the powers to be used in such a way that they are not brought into disrepute and that doubt is not cast on the way in which they are used.
That is slightly at odds with the earlier comment by one of my colleagues that the powers of the police are used with a great deal more sensitivity than was the case some years ago. For instance, the Metropolitan police exercise the power to stop and search people a great deal more sensitively than used to be the case. As one who worked in an area with a high proportion of ethnic minorities—the docks area of Cardiff—I have seen a positive development in the sensitivity with which the police try to understand the motivation of those who live in the communities in which they serve and seek to maintain law and order. That is a welcome development, over a period of time, and it should be encouraged. We believe that it should have the weight of the Home Secretary behind it, and I hope that we shall receive such an assurance about the use of the powers in the Bill as a result of the debate that I am introducing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made some references—to which the Home Secretary responded yesterday—to the monitoring of the way in which the powers are used. The Home Secretary referred specifically to the way in which the powers are used in relation to people from ethnic minorities. I said earlier that I do not believe that it has been a problem in respect of the powers introduced in the 1994 Act and I do not believe that it will be a specific problem in respect of the Bill, but it has been a problem in the past, when powers


to stop vehicles entering the City of London, as well as those being used in certain communities in London, gave rise to a great deal of concern, particularly among young people and the black community.
We believe that the amendments to the 1994 Act and the parallel provisions extending powers in the Bill have the right sort of safeguards. They require instigation by senior police officers, and accounting to the Home Secretary for the use of those powers. That provides reassurance. However, wider reassurance will be forthcoming if the Home Secretary's promises in relation to monitoring are spelt out in the debate.
It is important to get the balance right. We must provide the powers that the police need to be able to tackle the threat of terrorism and to act before things happen; but we must also ensure that the relevant powers are exercised in the most balanced way possible, so that the public can be reassured about the intentions of Ministers and the House.

Mr. Soley: The issue of guidance is important. The question has always been about more than civil liberties, important though they are. It is also about the way in which we respond to terrorist incidents. The last thing that we want to do is turn London into a mirror image of Belfast. Hon. Members need to remind themselves that that is one of the aims of terrorism. It is therefore important that the powers be used cautiously. That is why I oppose the use of the powers in too widespread an area.
I am not clear, after reading the Bill, whether it is intended that the defined areas would be very limited. For instance, the Metropolitan police, at a senior level, could decide that the whole of the Metropolitan police area should be such a defined area. Searches could then be carried out anywhere in that area. I assume that the same would apply to the West Midlands police or other police forces.
If the powers are to be used at all, they should be used in a more confined way—which is what I assume the Home Office intends. I presume that it does not want a blanket approach to an area the size of London if that can be avoided. If the police believe that a terrorist is transporting a weapon between two points in central London, those areas should be cleared and duly defined. That is entirely understandable, but using the power in a blunderbuss fashion will present an image to the world of London becoming like Belfast during the worst of the violence.
I urge the Government to look closely at the matter. The guidelines would be very useful if they stipulated that the areas concerned were to be as small as possible. Only three conditions stop this power being a sus law: the geographical confinement, the chronological confinement, and the necessity for authorisation by a senior police officer. Loosening the restrictions and allowing the boundaries to encompass an entire police force's area—although I would understand that in principle—will, I sincerely hope, not be the practice.

Mr. Canavan: If my amendments Nos. 47 and 48 were accepted, a person giving an authorisation under this proposed section would have to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State before that approval was given.
Clause 1 as it stands would enable an assistant chief constable to authorise searches within a designated area for a specified time of up to 28 days. Within that area, police officers would then be able to stop pedestrians and search them and any baggage that they might be carrying. Authorisation of the power to search pedestrians would require confirmation within 48 hours by the Home Secretary.
I firmly believe that the prior approval of the Home Secretary would be an advantage. In an intervention in the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading, I asked why there was no need for a warrant before the issue of the authorisation by the senior police officer. I am afraid that I did not get a satisfactory explanation. I understand that, under the provisions of the Bill, a senior police officer can simply give an oral authorisation—it does not even have to be in writing in the first instance. I find it strange that the police are able to issue such authorisation without any approval from a magistrate by way of a warrant or without any approval being expressed by the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Scotland or any of the junior Ministers and senior civil servants in the Home Department or the Scottish Office, as the case may be.
At present, the authorisation would be the decision of the senior police officer. I understand that that senior officer would have to be the chief constable, a deputy chief constable or an assistant chief constable. I hope that the Home Secretary or the Under-Secretary when replying will be able to tell us how the Government envisage that working in practice. How has it worked in practice already in Northern Ireland, where such powers have already been implemented? Does the Home Secretary envisage a situation in which a police officer or police officers on the spot may observe an incident or situation and consider that some emergency powers may be needed to deal with it?
In such circumstances, would the police officer or officers then telephone or radio the headquarters? Presumably, the chief constable or the deputy or assistant chief constable would then decide, in the light of the circumstances, whether the authorisation was necessary. If he considered it to be necessary, presumably he would issue the authorisation. Then, and only then, would he be required to communicate with the Home Office or with the Scottish Office.
In this day and age, when communications are very fast and when a Minister or a senior civil servant is on duty who can, if necessary, get the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland out of bed in the event of an emergency, I do not see why there should not be at least some obligation on the chief constable to attempt to communicate with the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State and to seek his approval. I admit that perhaps my amendment is too strongly worded because it would require the chief constable to obtain approval, but the Bill does not even contain an obligation on the chief constable to attempt to communicate with either the Home Office or the Scottish Office.
If the spirit of my amendments were accepted by the House and by the Government, that would be an improvement on the provisions. The sooner the Home Secretary is informed about such matters and his approval sought, the better. I am not saying that the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland are paragons of virtue or that they are adequate protectors of


human rights, but at least they are accountable in some way to Parliament and my amendments would give the Bill a greater degree of parliamentary accountability. I commend them to the Committee.

Ms Diane Abbott: Many people will wake up tomorrow morning and feel alarmed, dismayed and let down that the Labour party in Parliament has connived in such a fashion at the passing of the Bill. At the heart of many people's concerns will be the stop-and-search proposals in the clause. The Government and my Front-Bench colleagues have argued that the proposals are quite different from the provisions of the sus law and from existing stop-and-search provisions. But, in essence, the proposals are very similar to the sus law in that they give the police the power—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to make my own speech in my own way. I have no doubt that my speech will not be supported by the Home Secretary; I should be alarmed if it were.
The proposals will give the police arbitrary powers to stop and search people on the basis of wholly subjective judgments. The old sus law was perhaps the issue that caused my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and me to come into politics, and I have no stomach now in 1996 for voting for any measure that in any way brings back legislation which as a young person I campaigned against.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is wholly wrong in suggesting that a power with such safeguards to stop and search someone in the street is in any sense comparable to the sus law. As she knows, the whole point about the sus law, apart from the fact that there were no safeguards about arrests, was that it led to the commission of an offence for which people were either routinely fined or imprisoned. There is no suggestion whatever of that happening to someone who just submits to what amounts to an outer body search that is no more onerous than the search that, every day, some visitors to the Palace of Westminster have to endure.

Ms Abbott: I understand what my hon. Friend says and his motivation for saying it, but these provisions are very similar to those under the sus law. If somebody who looks like my hon. Friend and someone who looks like my brother, my cousin or my son walks past a policeman in the City of London, I know who that policeman will stop and search. It is the arbitrary and subjective nature of the judgments that the police will necessarily make under such powers that give rise to the concern of many people.
As a very young woman down from Cambridge, I and many other people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South, fought long and hard to have the sus law scrapped. It is sad that at this time of night, under a grotesque, truncated procedure, we are proposing to bring it back in some shape or form.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Lady might direct herself with advantage to a speech during proceedings on the timetable motion by an expert on the sus law. If she does that, I think that she will reconsider her remarks.

Ms Abbott: In my field I am an expert on the sus law. When the police are given these powers—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady may be an expert on the sus law, but the amendment is not about that; it is about guidance and the hon. Lady should address that.

Ms Abbott: I shall return to the issue of guidance. Guidance is important because, in essence, the proposals are very similar to the sus law. The group in society who suffered under the sus law will suffer under the proposals because, in every case and in every situation where the police are given such powers, we know the sort of judgments that they make. That is why I support the amendment. At the very least it would offer some guidance or some check or monitoring of the activities that will take place under the clause.
As I said at the beginning of my speech, many people will feel let down that the Labour party has connived at the passing of the clause. Many of us do not believe that the police need such powers in practice. I am arguing for the limited guidance provided in the amendment because I believe that some Opposition Members need to understand something: although it is impossible to out-Howard the Home Secretary—as I am sure he will be flattered to hear, there is no political position to the right of him—if we continue to connive at legislation of this nature, even with the guidance in the amendment, the Home Secretary will simply move further and further to the right. He will entrap us in legislation that is increasingly ill thought out and illiberal, and all that we shall have done is let down our natural supporters for no electoral gain.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made a disgraceful speech, which paid no attention to the earlier debate on the timetable motion. [HoN. MEMBERS: "She was not here."] I do not believe that the hon. Lady was present for that debate.

Ms Abbott: I watched it on television.

Mr. Bottomley: If the hon. Lady had watched it on television she would have heard what was said, and would not have said what is contradicted by the evidence. What has happened in the 15 years since the sus law went will not be overcome by clause 1, regardless of whether it is amended. I view this as a probing amendment, and look forward to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has to say.
We should recognise that those who need protection from terrorism are ordinary people—the sort of people whose husbands were killed by bombers in South Quay. Some people—not just the IRA but, potentially, other terrorists—are dedicated to turning women into widows and children into orphans. As the hon. Lady will have seen if she was watching the earlier debates on television, in some parts of the United Kingdom many of these provisions are already effective. We must ask ourselves, as many did in the earlier debates, whether we should exclude Great Britain from powers that are available to the police in Northern Ireland. That does not seem to me to be bringing back the sus law.
People in their cars can be stopped and searched but those getting off a bus cannot. Given the events that proved fatal to a person at the Aldwych, should we ignore


the lessons? Should we not allow the police to stop someone getting off a bus? The House should realise that ordinary people throughout the country—whatever the colour or their skin, eyes or hair—support such a move. There is no reason to believe that the Bill would bring back any of the harmful effects of the sus law.
I believe that we can trust those on both Front Benches. If both sides are willing to say that they see good reason for these measures, with or without extra guidance, other hon. Members must oppose them with good reason. What we heard from the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington was not good reason but prejudice. In some contexts, prejudice works in the wrong way. Changes are needed in the police services, for instance. I believe that the colour of people's skins still affects the number of times they are stopped—for example, most people who are stopped on Vauxhall bridge are black, and I do not think that that is right. I do not believe that skin colour should determine whether someone joins the police, enters Parliament, goes to prison or is in or out of work. All that needs challenging. The Bill's provisions are not like that, however, and I feel that the hon. Lady's speech featured the worst kind of stereotyping.

Ms Abbott: I do indeed have a prejudice. I have a prejudice against my party's following the Home Secretary down an increasingly ill-thought-out and illiberal path.

Mr. Bottomley: I think that the hon. Lady has done enough damage to her own case by her own words.

Mr. Bennett: I want to ask the Home Secretary for a little more information about the guidance which, I think, he has promised to issue. It is important for him to understand that, sadly, in this country, the natural reaction of too many people, especially young people, is not to assist the police but either to ignore them or to turn a blind eye to their activities. It is very important that the Home Secretary ensures that the clause does not increase alienation.
I put to the Home Secretary the difficult circumstances of people who commit a minor crime by carrying in their pocket an illegal substance—soft drugs of some type—about which most people, and certainly nowadays the police, do not get particularly excited. The problem is that, often, when the police officer decides to search such an individual, that person becomes extremely frightened about the fact that that illegal substance is in his pocket and perhaps behaves in a very silly way. I hope that the Home Secretary will make it clear in the guidance that, although the police cannot ignore the fact that they have come across that substance when they carry out the search, such a discovery will be considered sensibly.
It is clear that in some parts of the country, when individuals are found to have small quantities of drugs that are clearly for their personal use, the police use their powers of caution sympathetically. I suggest to the Home Secretary that it is important that the guidance is put across sympathetically, otherwise it will create alienation among a group of young people who are already not particularly sympathetic to the police. I hope that the Home Secretary's guidance not only does not condone

illegality but does not put something very minor in the same category as the very serious issues with which we are dealing.

Mr. Corbyn: On the issue of guidance, the methods of searching and the methods that will be used to stop people, I hope that the Home Secretary realises that there is an awful lot in what my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said about the perception of many young people, especially young black people in London, of the police and police powers. I, too, was part of the campaign to get rid of the sus law and I remember very well how that law worked. Large numbers of young black people were stopped, in some cases charged and in some cases convicted, but often simply stopped, intimidated and harassed while going about their normal lawful business in their home areas. Many people expressed to me last night and today the fear that giving the police unlimited powers of stopping and searching on the streets of London would lead to a return to such a feeling among young people towards the police force in London.
Three weeks ago, I had occasion to cross Waterloo bridge by car late on a Friday night—at about 12.30 or 1 o'clock in the morning—when a major stop-and-search operation was going on. Police cars were everywhere, armed units were standing on each side of the bridge, people were being questioned, not very many of whom were crossing the bridge on foot, most cars were being looked at and many were being stopped. As I drove past—I was not stopped—I noticed that more than half the people in the cars who were being questioned were black. Late at night on the streets of London, young black people in cars tend to get stopped and questioned and their cars tend to be searched. That tendency is later reflected in prosecution figures, and so on.
This morning, I was at the Camden Irish centre where its manager told me—I believe him—that young Irish people, many of them poor, and unfortunately homeless in London, feel harassed by the police when they are looking for somewhere to live. They are looking for a home, a room. The manager said—I believe him—that the reintroduction of police powers to stop and search people on the streets will lead to an unwarranted intrusion into those people's lives. He felt that large numbers of them would be stopped over the next few weeks when the power is introduced because London is, of course, a designated area. One must link the measure to the prevention of terrorism Act. Will the Home Secretary explain this point to me—if a young person is stopped one night under the stop-and-search procedure and the police officer decides that there is something suspicious about him, do the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 disappear? Do the provisions of the PTA—including the power to take that person into custody, hold him for 48 hours without access to a solicitor and, on the authority of the Home Secretary, hold him for up to seven days without a solicitor—then apply?
For far too long, constituents have rung me up over the weekend to tell me that they do not know what has happened to a son or daughter who was due to come over from Belfast or Dublin or who was travelling around. After a Kafkaesque series of telephone calls, one is able to elucidate from somebody that that person is being held under the provisions of the PTA. Thousands of people have been held under the provisions of the PTA in the


past 20 years. Very few have been prosecuted as a result, but none has forgotten the experience of being taken into a police station and told that he or she has no rights of access to a solicitor or advice. That is the fear that large numbers of people—particularly within the Irish community in London—have about this draconian legislation.

Mr. Howard: I shall begin by giving the House the assurance asked for by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I certainly intend to issue guidance on the use of these powers following consultation with the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. While that is in preparation, I shall issue immediate provisional guidance, and I will also advise the police that the relevant PACE code for stop and search should be applied to all stop-and-search provisions in the Bill. The police have told me that they will apply the PACE code voluntarily until the new provisions are formally brought within its scope. I hope therefore that that assurance satisfies the hon. Gentleman, and that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Home Secretary answer the point that I made concerning what happens to a person who is subsequently arrested under the provisions of the PTA? Do the PACE provisions disappear or do they remain in force? In other words, does a person have access to a solicitor for the stop and search if necessary, despite what might happen under the provisions of the PTA?

Mr. Howard: I was going to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point later, but since he has raised it again, I shall deal with it now. These provisions make absolutely no difference to the interrelationship between the provisions of PACE and the existing provisions of the PTA. If a person is arrested under the provisions of the PTA—because there is a suspicion that he is engaged in the terrorist activities specified in that Act—obviously all the provisions of the PTA apply. If, on the other hand, he is arrested under the provisions of PACE, that Act will apply. That has been part of our law, at least since the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was put on the statute book. It is not affected in the slightest by the provisions of the legislation.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The guidance to which I have just referred will, I believe, be sufficient to ensure that there is no need for the Secretary of State to grant initial authorisation for the use of the powers. The use of the powers will be triggered by immediate operational reasons, so I believe that it is right that the decision to use them should be made by a senior police officer. The need for the Secretary of State to confirm that authorisation within 48 hours and the prior issue of the guidance to which I have referred are adequate safeguards.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), the area that will be designated by the police will vary according to the circumstances. It is not something in respect of which I would wish to limit the discretion of the police. There may well be circumstances, such as those identified by

the hon. Gentleman, where the police have specific intelligence that is closely related to a specific location, which will enable them to use their designation powers in a limited area.
On the other hand, there may well be a general terrorist alert which will not be specific to a particular area and which will cause the police to designate the whole of their police area for the purpose of using these powers. Indeed, it could be—and has been—the whole of the Metropolitan police area. I do not propose to issue guidance that would inhibit the discretion of the police in the way in which they exercise their designation power. I believe that they will use common sense in their approach to the matter and that, if there is no need to designate the whole of their area, they will not do so. That is an entirely proper matter to be left to the police and I see no need to inhibit their discretion in the guidance that I propose to issue.
11 pm
I do not propose to deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I have nothing to add to the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), with which I entirely agree.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked what would happen if the police, in the exercise of their powers under the Bill, came across evidence of what he described as a minor crime being committed. That will be dealt with by the police, using their discretion, in the way in which they would normally deal with evidence of the commission of such crimes. I do not believe that they should approach these matters in a different way because they happen to come across evidence as a result of the use of the powers that they have been given under the Bill.
The police have discretion in how to proceed in relation to such matters generally. Sometimes they regard it as appropriate to issue a caution and sometimes they regard it as appropriate to prosecute. The police are perfectly capable of exercising that discretion generally. I see no need to inhibit that discretion by virtue of the fact that they will have come across the relevant evidence in the exercise of the powers that the Bill will confer on them.

Mr. Bennett: Does not the Home Secretary perceive that there is a problem, especially for young people? If a young person knows that he has an illegal substance in his pocket, if an attempt is made by a police officer to stop and search him and if he refuses, resists or does a bunk, under the Bill he will be subject to a fairly serious penalty. However, the likelihood is that, if young people are searched and a substance is found, they will be subject to a much more minor penalty.

Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman does the younger generation an injustice. Most young people, if they were stopped by a police officer and told that the area in which they were present had been designated by a senior police officer as an area in which special powers were available to the police because there was a terrorist threat in that area, would readily understand the position and would not react as the hon. Gentleman suggests. His characterisation of young people does them a serious injustice.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I want to follow up my earlier point, with which there was a good deal of sympathy.


There may be a provision for stopping and searching people because there are reasonable grounds to suspect that terrorist activity is around and, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, young people may have on them a substance that would not otherwise have been discovered. I am thinking of drugs, for example, and I am not suggesting theft. That substance might not normally have been discovered or the people involved might not normally have got more than a caution.
Could my right hon. and learned Friend draw to the attention of ACPO the possibility that if police officers exercising powers for one serious purpose discover something that normally would not draw a great deal of attention, it would be wise for the organisation to issue its own guidance? The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—I leave her speech out of account for the moment—referred to the fears about the Bill. Such guidance may stop us ending up with an analysis showing that young people, most of whom are black and some of whom may be involved with illicit substances, find themselves at the wrong end of powers that are directed at potentially far more serious crimes.

Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I will not give the police such guidance. First, I do not believe that they need it. They are perfectly capable of exercising their discretion in the normal way. Secondly, I believe that it would send a most unfortunate signal on how the Government regard the use of illicit substances. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that I have no intention of issuing such guidance.
I think that I have dealt with all the points that were made during the debate. I hope that it will be possible for the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Falkirk, West not to press their amendments.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for indicating that he will provide the sort of guidance that we seek and that he will seek sensible advice to ensure that the use of these powers commands support and does not run into the problems that hon. Members who have criticised the provisions have feared. In the light of his assurances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this we may discuss the following amendments: No. 39, in page 1, line 8, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'necessary'.
No. 17, in clause 4, page 6, line 5, leave out 'expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.
No. 18, in clause 5, page 6, line 31, leave out `expedient' and insert 'reasonable'.

Mr. Bennett: This is a probing amendment that refers to the use of word "expedient", which I think occurs three times in the Bill. I should like the Home Secretary to explain why he chose to use the word "expedient" rather than "reasonable". Much legislation uses the term "reasonable". There is reasonable evidence that the courts

and the police know how to interpret it, but the word "expedient" is rarely used legally. Apart from anything else, it is a fairly emotive term.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) got me two dictionary definitions of "expedient". "Chambers" defines it as:
profitable or convenient rather than fair or just".
That is not especially helpful. The "Shorter Oxford Dictionary" defines it as:
Useful or politic as opp. to right or just".
Two of that word's uses in the Bill refer to a senior police officer, who may well be able to follow the guidance easily. It would be better to use words that have been used in previous legislation and are well understood rather than introducing a new and emotive word. I am especially concerned about its use in clause 4, which is dealt with by amendment No. 17, where it refers to the use of a cordon. There, it is not a senior officer who must interpret it, but, in certain circumstances, a constable. There is more difficulty with that. Earlier in the debate the need to get a warrant to search premises was mentioned. Once a cordon has been put round, there is no need to get a search warrant. I well understand that if a cordon is set up because there is a suspicion that there is a bomb in the area, it would be stupid to have to get a search warrant.
However, the power is not restricted to the point at which there is immediate threat of injury to individuals; it goes wider than that. I can imagine that a police constable might feel it expedient to put a cordon around a group of buildings so that he and other officers could search them, rather than going through the rather more complicated process of getting a warrant.
Will the Home Secretary explain why it was necessary to put an emotive term such as "expedient" in the Bill rather than picking something much better understood and, in my view, more reasonable—the word "reasonable"?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In my dictionary the first three words used to define the word "expedient" are "wise, prudent, advisable". That seems to me perfectly sufficient. I also checked on the definition of the word "reasonable", which was "rational, acceptable, proper, sufficient". I think that to be wise, prudent and advisable is just as good as that.

Mr. Canavan: I support amendment No. 1, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), but, with respect, I think that my amendment No. 39 is even better.
The Home Secretary has claimed that the powers in the Bill are necessary in the campaign against terrorism. If they are all that necessary, the Bill should state that they cannot be used unless their use is a matter of necessity rather than of expediency. My amendment therefore proposes that the word "expedient" be replaced by the word "necessary" so that an authorisation could not be issued unless it appeared to a senior police officer that it was
necessary to do so in order to prevent acts of terrorism".

Mr. Howard: I was immensely attracted to the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for


Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), and I am sorry that I have not followed his example and looked up the dictionary definitions of the words. The truth, as is usual in such matters, is much more mundane. The reason for the presence of the word "expedient" in the Bill has, I confess, nothing to do with the attractive definition to which my hon. Friend referred. The word appears in the Bill because it is the word used in the existing section 13A and elsewhere in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. It is tried and proved, and has stood the test of time.
Contrary to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), "expedient" is far from a new word. As I said earlier in our proceedings, in framing the additional powers we have sought to follow as closely as possible the approach in the existing prevention of terrorism Act. The use of that word is an example of that approach.
In resisting the amendments for that reason, I do not, of course, want to give the impression that chief police officers will be able to use the powers either unreasonably—to deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish—or unnecessarily—to deal with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). The police are well aware of the need to exercise the safeguards with sensitivity and care, and as an additional safeguard, authorisation of the use of the new stop-and-search powers is subject to the Secretary of State's confirmation. Any unreasonable exercise might be open to challenge by judicial review.
In my view, therefore, the amendments are unnecessary, unreasonable and undesirable, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Bennett: In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I shall not press the amendment at this stage, although I am disappointed that he still has not replied to my question about whether the power could provide a short cut in order to avoid the need to go to a magistrate for a warrant. In view of the shortage of time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 16, leave out from second "for" to "the" in line 17.
This is a probing amendment. I do not understand why subsection (2) should not merely state that a constable may stop a pedestrian and
search him, or anything carried by him, for articles of a kind which could be used for the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts of terrorism.
I do not understand why the words
for a purpose connected with
are necessary because I should have thought that the intention behind the subsection was already clear. That is why I suggest that the other words should be deleted. Why have they been included?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): There is a straightforward explanation and reason for their inclusion.
I do not propose to accept the amendment because the power to search pedestrians will be based on the existing power to search passengers in vehicles. The clause, as drafted, mirrors the existing section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which has proved to work well. We therefore see no reason to adopt a different formulation, despite the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. On that basis, we ask him to accept the current wording and to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. McNamara: I accept the explanation that has been given. It reveals one of the problems caused by the procedures governing the passage of the Bill: because we have been able to study it for only such a short time, we have been unable to refer to what has gone before. In view of what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, leave out lines 19 to 21.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in page 1, line 21, at end insert—
on any particular person or in any thing carried by any particular person.".
No. 35, in page 2, line 46 at end insert—
on any particular person or in anything carried by any particular person.".

Mr. Canavan: The amendment would delete subsection (3) of clause 1, which states:
A constable may exercise his powers"—
to stop and search people—
whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles
of a kind that could be used for a purpose, as stated in subsection (2),
connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of … acts of terrorism.
Several of my hon. Friends have referred to the sus laws. I am not an expert in those laws because they do not apply to Scotland, but I assume that the word "sus" is short for suspicion or suspect. I assume that the draconian sus laws were used to stop and search, and possibly apprehend, people simply because they looked suspicious.
The power proposed in the Bill is even worse, because the constable does not even need grounds for suspecting the presence of articles of a particular kind. In the absence of grounds for suspicion, that officer can still stop and search a person.
What articles has the Minister in mind? Presumably they are items such as guns and trigger mechanisms for setting off bombs. How has similar legislation operated in Northern Ireland, where it has been on the statute book for many years? I hear from some of my contacts in Northern Ireland that the exercise of that power has not been very successful and that its use or abuse has alienated large sections of the community. Can the Minister offer us an attempted justification for those powers by citing experience of their operation in Northern Ireland? What has been discovered on the person of pedestrians as a


result of police searches? What acts of terrorism and other terrible crimes have been avoided as a result of the powers that have been given to the police?
The powers in the Bill are wide ranging. If this subsection is not deleted, the powers will be so wide that, within a designated area, a police officer in uniform could stop anyone going about lawful business, irrespective of any suspicion. The powers are far too comprehensive—in fact, they are so wide ranging that they could be counter-productive and they could alienate large sections of the community.
Earlier, I said that in the campaign against terrorism it is essential to have good relations between the police and the community. If there is a poor relationship between the police and the community, or if large sections of the community distrust the police, the police will not get the intelligence and the support from the community that they require in the campaign against terrorism.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the nature of terrorism. If he is looking for those who will supply the police with information, he must look at terrorists and not at those whom he believes may be offended if they are wrongly stopped and searched by the police. In that respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat confused as to the source of intelligence in the first place.

Mr. Canavan: No, I am not confused at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that in the campaign against terrorists it is absolutely essential to alienate them, as it were, from the community so that they do not get any direct or indirect support from it. The use and abuse of draconian powers could make a large number of people, particularly young people, feel that they are being harassed and intimidated by the police—in fact, such powers may act as a recruiting measure for some of the terrorist forces. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to see that happen.
My modest amendment—which would remove subsection (3)—would help in that situation. It would be obligatory for the police officer who is considering stopping and searching a person to have grounds for suspecting the presence of the articles referred to in the clause.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: By analogy, the fears of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) are misplaced. I know that he is a pedagogue of great distinction, but I do not know whether his background is in science. In one part of his speech he sought to prove a negative—that cannot be done.
I refer to the power of a police officer to stop someone in a vehicle and to ask them to undertake a breath test. During my time at the Department of Transport there were 1 million breath tests and not a single person who was stopped complained—not one. In such a case, people's livelihoods may be at stake, so one should not worry too much about leaving these powers in the Bill.
If we require a police officer to believe that an individual has a specified article on them or in their outer garments, we will lose the whole purpose of the provision. We allow a person who is in a vehicle to be searched, and the same sort of provision should apply to a person who is not in a vehicle. Otherwise, the message is given to

someone who wants to commission, or take part in the preparation of, or commit a terrorist offence that they only have to get out of their vehicle and the police, in effect, cannot touch them. That strikes me as peculiar. If people are not offended by the powers that the police have with respect to vehicles, they should not be offended by the powers that the Bill would give the police with respect to pedestrians in Great Britain.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked how many times material had been found on pedestrians in Northern Ireland. That is an interesting question, but it should not determine what happens now. We were given a clear warning by the events of the Aldwych, let alone by what may have been part of the preparation for the South Quay bomb, which would not necessarily have all come on the low loader. We should learn from the experience that people have suffered and try to ensure that we fill the gaps in the powers of the police.

Mr. Beith: Amendments Nos. 6 and 35 appear in my name. I do not accept that we should delete subsection (3), so I have suggested the addition of some words for clarification.
We are trying to make it possible for a police officer to carry out a general search in circumstances where, because of the threat of terrorist action, it seems advisable to ensure that no one can enter an area in possession of something with which they might commit a terrorist act. Therefore, we propose to remove from a police officer the need to have a specific reason to believe that the person whom he intends to search is carrying something; otherwise it is not a general search. Of course, he is carrying out the search only because someone above him in the hierarchy has reason to believe that a terrorist offence may be committed in the area; otherwise he would not have authorised the general search.
That is why I have suggested that we should free the police officer from the obligation to have grounds for suspecting the presence of articles on any one of the people whom he decides to search. The object is to ensure that the absence of intelligence information suggesting that a particular person has something in his possession does not preclude an officer from carrying out a search that is based more generally on intelligence that something may be afoot in the locality.
I have suggested this wording because it would bring to bear that precise obligation in clause 1—that none of this should happen unless it is suspected that a terrorist offence may be committed and that someone is carrying such material about with them, but that an officer need not have reason to believe that every person he searches might be in that position. My wording assists that understanding of the provision. It may be technically unnecessary, but I hope that the Minister can confirm that that is the intention of the clause.
We are now more than halfway through the time allocated for the Committee stage. Hon. Members have been brief and succinct in their speeches, but the fact that we are still in the middle of the amendments on the first clause and that we have many more clauses to discuss shows that we have been set an impossible task tonight.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: In relation to amendment No. 5, relating to clause 1(3), one of the difficulties about the operation of this type of power is


that one must try to understand on what basis a person is stopped and searched. If it is not on the basis of intelligence that would automatically lead to suspicion, it is either a random search or not.
The first question we should ask is, what does "random" mean? Is it every fifth car, every second car, every tenth car? What is it? Is it just taking the opportunity of establishing a presence in that area, through which those who are or may be carrying illegal weapons might move very quickly? From the experience of the north of Ireland, the people involved in such activity are adept at reading the random situation.
The second, more important, question is, at what stage after a vehicle or person has been searched does the random element translate into suspicion? There is a rake's progress in relation to that. Those who are young are much more likely to be searched than those who are not young. For those who are young and have other young people—especially young men—travelling in their car, the possibility of being searched increases substantially. I see it happen every day of the week where I live: one can be sure that the cars carrying young men from building sites will be pulled over to the side of the road and that they will be searched. It is not simply young people travelling together who are likely to be stopped and searched: people with Irish accents will almost certainly be subjected to the powers in the legislation. I pose this relevant question: if a man and his wife were driving in their car and four young Irishmen who had just left work on a building site were driving behind them, which car would be most likely to be subjected to a search without any reasonable suspicion?
11.30 pm
Leaving aside Irish accents, what about those young people who are a different colour? A constable may be tempted to apply the powers in the legislation not because there is reasonable suspicion regarding any element of terrorism, but because of other factors pertaining to the community. There is the potential for a combustible and very dangerous situation. The stop-and-search power and the power to detain have caused the most problems of all those which apply in the north of Ireland. The generation subjected to those powers—young people who have never known a time when such powers did not exist—is most susceptible to the terrorist propaganda. In many instances, they have suffered at the hands of this sort of legislation and they have turned towards terrorism—or at least acquiesced to terrorism—as a result.

Mr. Trimble: I believe that the hon. Gentleman may be erring in drawing his comparisons, as the circumstances in south Armagh may not be quite the same as those in London. The social and political attitudes evinced by the populations of those two areas may be different also. He may not have heard the figures that were given earlier in the debate regarding searches conducted under section 13A—and the provision is an extension along similar lines. We were told that under that section 8,000 vehicles had been searched with scarcely any complaints. The hon. Gentleman's fears may be a little overdone.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me that the same attitudes do not apply in south Armagh

and in London—and long may that remain so. However, I assure the House that this sort of legislation is the surest way of promoting and creating a similar reaction in London. Year after year and decade after decade, I have been struck by the idea that we are lucky in the north of Ireland because sooner or later we shall be in a position to abolish that sort of emergency legislation. However, we should not imagine that the residual effects will not be felt in this country. The biggest single danger—to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention—is that the legislation will be exploited here for various social reasons, including race, colour and class. I see it every day. We are lucky because, sooner or later, when we have the good sense to reach an agreement, there will be an end to the conflict in the north of Ireland and there will be an end to the emergency provisions Act. We shall then have the opportunity to make sure that Britain does not have to live with such legislation as its residue never leaves: once the need for it is created here, it will remain—that is one of the greatest dangers in clause 1.
I see the legislation working every day. I drove to the latest proximity talks—or preliminary talks, as they were called—along exactly the same road, through exactly the same checkpoint in exactly the same car for seven days running. This is where the random element comes in: on each occasion every other car was waved through, but mine was stopped. I was asked, "What is your name, sir?" Very courteously, I gave my name. I was then asked, "Where are you going, sir?" Very courteously, I told them where I was going.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman was very wise to keep away from trouble.

Mr. Mallon: I am a mature person, not a young person who might be susceptible to that. If that can happen to someone such as myself, of mature age and, I hope, a little sense, what combustible circumstances will be created among young people day in and day out?
I know from personal experience that Provos have been created by that very piece of legislation. I know it because I know them. I have talked to them. I knew them before they were Provos. I talked to them in prison after they became terrorists and I know the reasons that triggered—if the House will forgive the pun—their reactions. There were two factors, one of which was the power to stop and search. In any circumstances, a body search is a humiliation. In a public place, it is even more of a humiliation. Under the terms of the legislation, to have someone remove one's shoes, jacket and outer clothing is a double humiliation. That is how the searches will be carried out and that humiliation produces a reaction. The reaction will express itself differently here: it will produce racial and social tension in places such as Kilburn, where the Irish population will be saturated with searches. Once the police are given such powers without recourse even to reasonable suspicion, the whole integrity of the law will be diminished, and when that happens, society in general does not have the protection of that law.

Mr. Corbyn: I hope that the House has taken note of what was said by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the effects of a stop-and-search policy. I strongly support amendment No. 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) as it addresses a double problem in the measure.


First, the police will be protected from any complaint about a totally erroneous and harassing stop and search because they do not have to provide any evidence whatever of the need to stop and search somebody. Secondly, the meansure will create the utmost anger and ill feeling within the Irish community. A young Irish person living in London, perhaps working with one or two others on building industry jobs and driving around London in a Ford Transit van, will find himself constantly being stopped and harassed as soon as the police hear his accent. I have met many people who are very angry at the attitude of the police. As soon as they hear an Irish accent enunciated by a building worker, that becomes the ground for investigation, complaint and demanding to see documents. This new power gives the police carte blanche to stop people for no obvious reason.
Even if the legislation is designed to elicit the co-operation of the community in achieving its purpose, I believe that it will operate in exactly the opposite way. It will not be just Irish building workers and people with Irish accents who are stopped. Under the legislation, the police do not have to give any reason for stopping someone. So next it will be young black people walking along the street whom the police may or may not like, or whom the police may suspect of something else, or to whom the police may want to give a hard time; they will be stopped and searched and there will be no comeback for them.

Mr. Trimble: They have a remedy at law.

Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman expresses his opinion from a very sedentary position—he is sitting on the floor. My reading of the amendment suggests that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West would provide a remedy in the law, but the legislation itself ensures that there is no such remedy, as the police do not have to give reasons for stopping and searching people.
Surely in a civilised society which believes in due process, the police have to have a reason for doing something. I hope that the House will therefore heed my hon. Friend's view, well supported as he was by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who has explained exactly how such powers can alienate an entire community and have effects that are the opposite of those intended.

Ms Abbott: I support the amendments, especially amendment No. 5. At the heart of my concern about the Bill is the giving of fresh powers to the police to stop and search people at random.
Subsection (3) states:
A constable may exercise his powers under this section whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles
for the commission of acts of terrorism. That process is wholly subjective and arbitrary. We have heard from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) about the consequences of such legislation for community relations in Northern Ireland. His experience cannot be bettered. What is more, just as that type of arbitrary power to stop and search has poisoned relations between young people and the authorities in Northern Ireland, so it will poison relations between young people and the authorities in London.
It will not do to say that there are not many complaints, or that young people will understand. All that we know about the exercise of such powers is that they create tensions, hostility and resentment. If this House really wants to fight terrorism, we must all accept that, ultimately, the job is one of winning hearts and minds. We shall not win them by giving the police arbitrary powers of this kind which, all the evidence tells us, inevitably lead to friction between the police and the community, especially young people—whatever their colour.

Mr. Kirkhope: This has been a useful debate, but I am rather disappointed at some of the negative remarks made by several hon. Members. One has only to listen to the views of the hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to realise that, much as we may not wish to have these powers and much as we may restrict them, they are shown to be effective in Northern Ireland, and we believe that they will help us in the fight against terrorism on the mainland as well.
I must also tell hon. Members that the safeguards for the powers mean that the analogy suggested by the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who tried to link the Bill with the old sus laws, does not work. They must realise that the Bill contains tight restrictions, including specified areas, specified circumstances, the approval of a senior police officer and a time limit.
11.45 pm
Amendment No. 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), would have the effect of removing clause 1(3) which, as we have heard, will allow the searching of a pedestrian by a constable
whether or not he has any grounds for suspecting the presence of articles
that could be used for
the commission, preparation or instigation of … acts of terrorism.
As has been mentioned, the Bill as drafted mirrors the existing provision in section 13A(4) of the PTA, which allows a constable to search vehicles, their occupants and the bags of pedestrians without specific grounds for suspicion. It would plainly not make any sense for the similar powers in the Bill to be operated in completely different ways. As I have said, the existing stop-and-search powers in section 13A of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Temporary Provisions) 1989 are subject to close safeguards and so will the new stop-and-search power be.
I mentioned the authorisation of a senior police officer, in this case an assistant chief constable. In addition to the existing safeguards, the new powers to search pedestrians will lapse after 48 hours if the Home Secretary does not endorse them. By requiring grounds for suspicion, as has been suggested by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West, amendment No. 5 would seriously weaken a critical part of the provision: the deterrent effect. I am sure that hon. Members from Northern Ireland are aware of the importance of that and, indeed, the hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to it earlier. Removing the deterrent effect would have a serious impact which we believe would be very unfortunate. A terrorist cannot be allowed to know that he can walk down the street with inconspicuous devices in his pocket without any


possibility of the police giving him even the most cursory search. It is essential that the police are able to take steps to prevent attacks carried out by terrorists, whether on foot or in vehicles.

Ms Abbott: The Under-Secretary of State has commented on a number of interventions by hon. Members, but I hope that he will not complete his remarks without commenting on the speech made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who, from his experience of his part of Great Britain, made the interesting observation that precisely such provisions had created terrorists.

Mr. Kirkhope: I appreciate that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has his views on the subject, and I have listened to them with great care. Perhaps what he was saying—and I do not agree—was that once such powers are put in place, they will never be removed. That is, in my view, an especially negative comment. Our hope is that these powers will be removed, that we shall have peace and that we shall not need the powers to curb or deter terrorism. Unfortunately, we need to do that now and we have to make the powers as effective as possible.
The only people who would benefit from amendment No. 5 are terrorists, who would be able to walk the streets with impunity. That is why I cannot accept the amendment. As for amendments Nos. 6 and 35, tabled by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), they would add nothing to the meaning of clause 1. On a simple point of logic, since the power is to be available and should be available regardless of suspicion, it does not seem to matter on what that suspicion could or should centre. On that basis, I must ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Canavan: I should like to respond briefly to the Minister's disgraceful comment that the only people who would benefit from my amendment would be terrorists. That is absolute nonsense. Many people going about their lawful business, going to and from work, going shopping, visiting relatives or even going to their own residences will suffer at the least a great deal of inconvenience or possibly worse with harassment by the police because of the legislation. My amendment would have provided at least some benefit to those innocent people.
I do not want to waste precious time by pressing the amendment to a Division. However, I certainly do not wish to withdraw it because the Minister has not made a logical argument against it.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—
'(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) above, "in public" shall include any public highway and any other area accessible to the public.'.
My colleagues and the Committee will recall that clause 1 (4) states:
Nothing in this section authorises a constable to require a person to remove any of his clothing in public other than any headgear, footwear, outer coat, jacket or gloves.

Earlier, we had an interesting debate about when and in what circumstances a jacket might be removed from a lady. The amendment has been moved to understand whether "in public" includes what is contained in the amendment or whether it has some other meaning.

Mr. Kirkhope: I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The term "in public" includes any public highway or any other area accessible to the public. I hope that that short response assists the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Straw: It assists me mightily. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 2, line 8, leave out—
'imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 44, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'or both'.

Mr. Canavan: The amendment would delete the reference to a prison sentence. Under the Bill as it stands people could be sent to prison for up to six months simply for failing to stop when required to do so by a constable exercising his powers under the clause.
There are already far too many people in our prisons and far too many anomalies in our judicial and penal systems. Many people are sent to prison simply for not paying fines and others, strangely, receive non-custodial sentences although some of them have committed serious crimes, including violent crimes and sexual abuse of children and so on. It would be unfair if people who had committed offences that were not nearly as serious as some of those to which I have referred were sent to prison for up to six months.
For example, someone might be in a hurry to get to work and might not know that the surrounding area had been designated by a senior police officer in accordance with the Bill, perhaps during the night or early in the morning. That person might brush past a policeman, and refuse to stop in order not to be late. A woman might refuse to be searched by a male police officer. The Home Secretary said earlier that it was perfectly permissible for a male officer to subject a woman to a search; some women—perhaps even most women—might object strongly to that. I think that it would be unjustifiable for people caught up in such circumstances to be imprisoned for up to six months.

Mr. Kirkhope: The penalties provided in new section 13B mirror those provided in respect of offences committed under the existing section 13A. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that the penalties are excessive, or that they should be changed. If a person fails to stop for a search, or obstructs a constable, that will immediately give rise to suspicion that he may either be carrying terrorist or other prohibited material, or deliberately be causing a diversion to divert police resources from the real bomber. In such circumstances, I think it entirely proper to leave it to the court to decide whether a prison sentence is appropriate.


I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, who clearly feels strongly about the issue; but I feel strongly about it as well, and I think that, while the conclusions reached by the courts are a matter for them, the penalties should be those that we have proposed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 2, line 13, at end insert—
'and in any case not later than 24 hours after it has been given orally.'.
Clause 1 gives the police power to make an order that can last for 48 hours, but must then be confirmed by the Secretary of State or lapse. The person giving the authorisation must ensure that the Secretary of State is informed, as soon as reasonably practicable, that it has been given. We believe that a time limit should be placed on what is reasonably practicable: we believe that the information should be given not later than 24 hours after the authorisation has been given orally. We are saying that the power can operate for a day, but after that the Secretary of State must be informed. That does not mean that the power cannot exist for another 48 hours. The Secretary of State will not be prevented from deciding when the matter should be dealt with, but the amendment imposes a duty on the police authority to ensure—to overcome the suspicions felt by many of us—that the police inform the Secretary of State of the action that has been taken within 24 hours.

Mr. Kirkhope: There is obviously a clear operational need for the police to be able to respond quickly to intelligence or discoveries of terrorist activity. That is why the stop-and-search power can be invoked orally. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has said, the amendment would require a stop-and-search operation that had been authorised orally to be confirmed in writing within 24 hours.
The police would not want—nor would they have any reason—to delay written confirmation of the powers. A number of bombs and false alarms on the same day might make it very difficult to obtain written authorisation without taking a senior officer away from critical operational duties at that time. For that reason, we cannot afford to impose an inflexible and rigid 24-hour limit.
12 midnight
Furthermore, under clause 1(8), a person giving an authorisation for the use of the power must inform the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable, and, as I said a little while ago, if the authorisation has not been confirmed by the Secretary of State within 48 hours of its issue, it will lapse. I do not therefore believe that there is any need for the amendment.
The same powers for oral authorisation, followed by written authorisation as soon as is reasonably practicable, are also being provided for in section 13A stop-and-search powers by clause 1(6). In the circumstances, the amendment is neither necessary nor desirable.

Mr. McNamara: What has been said makes the amendment necessary and practicable and the Bill should be amended. It is not too much of an imposition on the police to require that within 24 hours of taking such an extraordinary power they should inform the Secretary of State of what they have done.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Madden: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(11) For the purposes of this section any person so stopped shall on being stopped be given the warrant number of the constable stopping him.'.
We have been given the impression throughout the proceedings that pedestrians who are stopped and asked to undergo a search will be required to do so only by a single police officer in standard uniform. I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is very likely that police officers will be in groups and wearing protective clothing when stops are made. I am also sure that he appreciates that such protective clothing would often obscure the officers' numbers. The permanent and provisional guidance to which the Home Secretary has referred should therefore urge police officers in all circumstances to give their warrant number to the person who is being stopped and searched.
Taking into account the comments of several hon. Members, it would be very helpful if the guidance also ensured that, so far as is reasonably practicable, a woman police officer were always included in the group of officers undertaking such stops and searches. That would certainly allay some hon. Members' anxieties.
Lastly, we hope that the powers will be exercised with circumspection and sensitivity. I hope that that will also apply to Sikhs who wear turbans, because any request for a Sikh to remove his turban—particularly in a public place, as envisaged in the Bill—would cause grave offence. I hope that the guidance will emphatically urge police officers not in any circumstances to request a Sikh to remove his turban.
I would urge the Minister to accept the amendment, as no amendment has so far been accepted by the Government. This is a reasonable request that should be accepted by the Minister. If a pedestrian is stopped in these circumstances, the least he should be given to allay any anxieties is the warrant number of the officer concerned. That is a basic requirement, and I hope the Minister accepts that.

Mr. Kirkhope: I hope that what I have to say will reassure the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I certainly understand his concerns, and we are completely at one in thinking that the new powers will need to be applied carefully, sensitively and appropriately. I believe that that will be done, but perhaps I can take my reassurance further.
I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The hon. Member for Bradford, West will be aware that the new powers will be subject to PACE code A—the code of practice covering the stop and search of persons—in the same way as the police powers under section 13A are now. He will also know that PACE code A requires a constable to give the person concerned his name, warrant or other identification number and the name of the police station to which he is attached before carrying out any search. The constable is also required to explain the object of the search and his authorisation for undertaking it.
The hon. Member for Bradford, West asked whether the powers applied to constables in uniform, and he will see that clause 1(2) of the Bill
confers on any constable in uniform the power".


He also mentioned a matter that has been raised with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—namely, the question of having women officers available when women are to be searched. I must repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this; in operational terms, we cannot guarantee that. There is probably a preference within the police that—where it is possible and appropriate—a woman constable should be involved when dealing with women, but I cannot give a guarantee or an assurance in the circumstances.
I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, West is to some extent reassured by the nature of the obligations that exist under PACE code A and to which reference is made in the Bill. Because of that full information, I hope he will agree that his amendment is not necessary.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
'(12) If, following the exercise of the powers contained in section 13A above or this section a person is arrested and charged with an offence other than an offence under this Act or otherwise connected with terrorism, the fact and nature of the initial exercise of stop and search powers shall be made known to the court.'
The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) touched on such reassurance to some extent. Indeed, he went rather further by suggesting that the police should not prosecute for less serious offences that are discovered as a result of powers used to try to detect or prevent terrorism. The Home Secretary rejected that general approach, and I believe that there are some difficulties with it, as I think the hon. Member for Eltham would acknowledge.
Our amendment would require simply that the court should be aware when evidence arises from the exercise of the powers provided in the Bill. The court would, therefore, be able to take that fact into consideration if appropriate. Magistrates or judges would be well able to take a balanced view and to make a judgment on whether the circumstances were appropriate and should affect the disposal of the case before them.
The amendment would certainly put the matter on the record. It would supplement the promises already made by the Home Secretary about monitoring the use of the provisions and it would ensure that the knock-on effect from using the powers was transparent. That would offer reassurance to people because one cannot misuse a power or smuggle in prosecutions if one tells the court the nature of the circumstances in which evidence has been garnered. The amendment would have no detrimental effect on the police or the prosecution service in terms of ensuring that a breach of the law was brought before the court, but it would ensure, through transparency, that there was reassurance for those who fear that the provisions might be misused.
I have said that I do not fear misuse of the Bill. There is always a danger that the police will misuse their powers or go beyond them; it happens from time to time. It is regrettable when it happens and we need to have safeguards in place to avoid the misuse of powers as far as possible. That is in the best interests of the public and the police, who need the powers to do their job properly.
I hope that the Minister will accept that we are suggesting a proposal that provides an element of transparency, but that would not downgrade the ability of the police to use evidence that is gained as a result of the exercise of the new powers. That transparency would reassure those who fear the possibility of misuse of the powers. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about the approach that will be taken on the matter.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has put the case fairly, as he acknowledged that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary did in responding to the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), with inadequate reinforcement by me.
I go back to my roads experience to argue against the point that I made earlier. I am aware that the police find that when they stop people in vehicles for one reason or another, a high proportion of offences is detected at certain times of night, many of which are not linked to the reason for stopping the vehicle in the first place. A good point has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Having said that, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken a purist position. If one is trying to protect the vulnerable, whether or not they have been involved in an offence, one needs to be careful about the impact. Equally, I do not agree with the purist view, taken by some Labour Members, that the police should be able to charge people only if they have stopped them with a particular offence in mind. The culture within the police, within the courts and within the Crown Prosecution Service, therefore, needs to be not just accepted, but worked for.
Obviously I would like people not to commit offences in the first place, whether major or minor, but one needs to do more than to hope. I have had experience of the police doing their duty well; that is normal for police officers. However, like many hon. Members, I have come across the odd occasion when police officers have not done the right thing. For example, there have been cases of trumped-up charges of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, whether in a police station or elsewhere. This is not the right time, or Bill, to go into those issues, but I hope that those who will consider what to do with information that has been gained under this provision will exercise proper discretion, as I hope that they always do.

Mr. Mallon: I am in favour of this wise amendment. I knew that I would find something about which I could agree with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman. If, as it must be, the operation of these powers is to be assessed, this surely is one of the ways in which it can be done. Ultimately, it is probably the only way.
I am not able to furnish the figures because of the speed with which we had to come here and prepare for the debate, but if the Minister were to examine the figures for people charged under the emergency provisions Act in the north of Ireland, he would find that, in the past four years, well over 80 per cent. of cases involved charges in connection with parking motor cars in a place designated as illegal from a security point of view. It is essential that an amendment such as this is accepted so that an assessment can be made of how such legislation is operating.


Having said that, we shall find that it is a two-edged weapon. Inevitably, a substantial number of non-terrorist cases will be established as a result of this anti-terrorist legislation. The case will be made that such stop-and-search powers should be part of the usual arrangements because of their very success. Even accepting that element of it, the legislation must be assessed by Parliament when that is required by Parliament. It must be assessed by the Home Office at all stages and it must be assessed so that the public can be reassured that it is being used in the proper way. I support the amendment.

Mr. Kirkhope: I appreciate the remarks that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and by the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). However, it is hard to understand how a person could be dealt with in a court without the original stop and search being made clear in the prosecution evidence. It would be up to the court to decide whether such evidence was admissible in any particular case. The amendment's purpose is met by existing arrangements. Despite all the persuasive and interesting arguments, it is not necessary. For that straightforward reason, I ask the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Michael: The Minister needs to take a little more note of the issues that have been raised. It is important in practice—we will keep an eye on this—that reassurance is offered that the powers will be used for the intention for which they were given by Parliament, and not abused. That is why we tabled the amendment. The Minister and the Home Secretary have acknowledged the importance of that, as have hon. Members on both sides of the House in this short debate. A marker has been put down and in the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 162, Noes 20.

Division No. 96]
[00.20 am

AYES


Alexander, Richard
Butler, Peter


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Arbuthnot, James
Carttiss, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cash, William


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Chapman, Sir Sydney


Ashby, David
Clappison, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coe, Sebastian


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Beggs, Roy
Conway, Derek


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Body, Sir Richard
Couchman, James


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bowis, John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Brandreth, Gyles
Day, Stephen


Browning, Mrs Angela
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Burns, Simon
Devlin, Tim


Burt, Alistair
Darrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Butcher, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James





Duncan Smith, Iain
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dunn, Bob
Merchant, Piers


Elletson, Harold
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moate, Sir Roger


Faber, David
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Fabricant, Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fishburn, Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Nelson, Anthony


Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Nicholls, Patrick


French, Douglas
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gallie, Phil
Norris, Steve


Garnier, Edward
Page, Richard


Gillan, Cheryl
Paice, James


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Paisley, The Reverend Ian


Gorst, Sir John
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Powell, William (Corby)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Rendel, David


Harris, David
Richards, Rod


Hawkins, Nick
Riddick, Graham


Hawksley, Warren
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Hicks, Robert
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Hunter, Andrew
Spink, Dr Robert


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Spring, Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Steen, Anthony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Stephen, Michael


Key, Robert
Stern, Michael


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sweeney, Walter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Thomason, Roy


Knapman, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Trimble, David


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Viggers, Peter


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Waller, Gary


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Ward, John


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Waterson, Nigel


Leigh, Edward
Watts, John


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whittingdale, John


Lord, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Luff, Peter
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Willetts, David


McCrea, The Reverend William
Wolfson, Mark


MacKay, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Maginnis, Ken
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maitland, Lady Olga
Mr. Richard Ottaway and


Major, Rt Hon John
Mr. Gary Streeter.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Mackinlay, Andrew


Barnes, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Mallon, Seamus


Bennett, Andrew F
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Salmond, Alex


Cunningham, Roseanna
Sedgemore, Brian


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A



Livingstone, Ken
Tellers for the Noes:


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Max Madden and


McGrady, Eddie
Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee, THE CHAIRMAN put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Clauses 2 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment, pursuant to Order.

Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), just gave a seriously misleading report—and he had much difficulty in reading it. He said that the Committee had gone through the Bill. Is it not the case that the Committee has been allowed to consider only clause 1 of the Bill?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It may be a point of comment, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We have had a long, constructive and extremely interesting debate. I recognise that some hon. Members have not had as much time as they would have liked to consider each and every clause of the Bill in detail. However, I believe that we have been able to debate the principal points at issue. In addition, the assurances that have been given on the genuine concerns that have been raised should go far to allay any anxieties. Some hon. Members have deep-rooted reasons for opposing the Bill, and clearly we have not been able to satisfy their concerns. Nevertheless, I believe that we have established to the satisfaction of hon. Members the urgent need for these powers in the face of the terrorist threat. We need to give the police these additional powers if they are to do their utmost to give the people of this country the protection from terrorism that they deserve.

Mr. Beith: I shall give the Home Secretary the opportunity to allay another point of concern. I refer to proposed paragraph 4A(5) of schedule 5 to the 1989 Act. Are the persons employed by a police authority for the assistance of constables—who are given power under the Bill, if necessary, to use reasonable force for the purpose of performing these functions—civilian employees? Are they people who have been trained to use reasonable force? Have Scottish chief constables been consulted about, and given approval for, the use of civilians, using reasonable force for the performance of those functions?

Mr. Howard: The intention of proposed paragraph 4A(5) is to allow persons who are not constables to exercise the paragraph 4A powers. Sub-paragraph (5) provides a similar power in Scotland to that provided in England and Wales by paragraph 4A(3), and it is intended that people in the category identified by the right hon. Gentleman will have the powers to which he referred. I believe that the police will exercise discretion and common sense in seeking the assistance of people who

come into that category. I do not believe that that need give rise to any serious or deep anxiety on the part of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary was asked a specific question about consultation with Scottish chief constables. He has manifestly refused to answer it. Will he now kindly do so? Has there been consultation with Scottish chief constables on the point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)? Will the Home Secretary kindly address the point?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has now asked an entirely different question. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman has now asked a question about consultation.

Mr. Mackinlay: The answer is no.

Mr. Howard: No, the answer is not no, if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself from his sedentary position.
As I said earlier, I discussed these matters with the senior police officer in this country who has responsibility for directing anti-terrorist operations, and Home Office officials discussed the matter with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. These powers have therefore been discussed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. I believe that, when the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has the opportunity of considering these matters with ACPO Scotland, he will find that its members are as desirous of these additional powers as are their counterparts in England and Wales.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: rose—

Mr. James Wallace: rose—

Mr. Howard: I give way first to the hon. Lady and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Ewing: This is an interesting exchange. Will the Home Secretary place in the Library a record of the meetings that were held with representatives of the Scottish police superintendents and Scottish police officers? This appears to be a sign that there is now an attempt to apply the prevention of terrorism Act UK-wide. If that is to be the case, surely we need much more substantial debates, and we certainly need to know the response of police officers in Scotland.

Mr. Howard: I must correct, in one minor detail, what I said a moment ago. I am told that I said that Home Office officials discussed the matter with ACPO Scotland.

Mr. Wallace: You did.

Mr. Howard: I should have said Scottish Office officials, because it was Scottish Office officials who were engaged in those discussions with ACPO Scotland.
I confess that I do not entirely follow the drift of the point raised by the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). We have made clear from the outset the way in which the


powers are to be exercised and the territorial areas to which they apply. The main prevention of terrorism Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland; there are different provisions in Northern Ireland. As I made plain from the outset—in my statement yesterday—all the powers save the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be confined to Great Britain under the Bill, but the one that is not at present available in Northern Ireland would be legislated for on a United Kingdom basis. There has been no doubt about that; I made it clear from the outset.

Mr. Wallace: I wonder when the Home Secretary last read the 1993 report of Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary for Scotland—specifically, paragraphs 47 to 51, which relate to the use of civilian employees in the police force—which clearly categorises what is appropriate for civilian employees and what is not. What training has been made available to civilian employees so that, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, they may exercise the powers that the Home Secretary has given them under the proposed paragraph?

Mr. Howard: I freely confess to the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report of the inspectorate in Scotland. However, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. The police will have every opportunity to ensure that, in exercising the powers, they do not seek the assistance of those who have not received the appropriate training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the police are extremely careful about the need to train anyone with particular responsibilities. That applies as much to those who assist the police in discharging those responsibilities as to anyone else. I think that I can confidently make that assertion and give that assurance, even without being familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to display his ignorance of the situation in Scotland in the absence of any Scottish Office Minister on the Government Front Bench to advise him of what he should know already?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Howard: I utterly reject the hon. Gentleman's point. I am not responsible for the police in Scotland: that is why I have told the House that I am not familiar with paragraphs 47 to 51 of the report to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) referred. I shall now resume the points that I was making.

Mr. Wallace: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary says, quite rightly, that he is not responsible for the police in Scotland. However, the legislation to which we are being asked to give Third Reading includes clauses that relate specifically to Scotland. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you recollect any Bill coming before the House containing provisions for which there was no Minister responsible on the Treasury Bench? Is that not a serious dereliction of duty by the Government?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I repeat that it is a matter for the Government, not for the Chair.

Mr. Phil Gallie: rose—

Mr. Howard: If my hon. Friend will contain himself for a moment, I shall content myself with making this observation: none of those hon. Members who have risen to proclaim the extent of their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland deigned to come into the Chamber during the former proceedings. They were not present during the Second Reading of the Bill, during the discussions about the timetabling of the legislation or during any of the considerations in Committee. If they were serious in their concern about the Bill's application to Scotland, they would have been present for those discussions.

Mr. Wallace: We never reached it.

Mr. Howard: It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that, because we reached that stage in the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I see from the entrance of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), that our points of order are having some effect. Is it in order for the Home Secretary, who has no responsibility for Scotland, to make those allegations when we manifestly did not reach the parts of the Bill that hon. Members from Scotland wished to discuss as a result of the Government's timetable motion?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I have explained before—it seems to be slow sinking in—the Chair has no responsibility for those matters.

Mr. Howard: The points of order are just as bogus as the concerns that Opposition Members are expressing. They know perfectly well that whatever is capable of being raised on Third Reading could be raised on Second Reading.

Mr. Beith: I did.

Mr. Howard: I am not talking about the right hon. Gentleman; he does not represent a Scottish constituency and I am excluding him from my remarks. I refer to the hon. Members for Moray, for Orkney and Shetland and for Banff and Buchan, who have risen in the past few minutes and whose concern is every bit as bogus as their interventions and points of order.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Howard: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who at least has been present for most of the debate.

Mr. Mallon: Lest there be any invidious distinction drawn, the Minister will agree that the fifth section of the legislation applies to the north of Ireland for the first time. Should not the Minister responsible for security in the north


of Ireland be in the Chamber—at least out of courtesy to hon. Members from Northern Ireland—or did the Home Secretary prevent that out of consideration for us?

Mr. Howard: There was no need for any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who serve in the Northern Ireland Office to be here. The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points during the debate and they were all answered, so I do not believe that he has any cause for concern.

Rev. William McCrea: Does the Home Secretary accept that the vast majority of people in the United Kingdom appreciate that he has brought to the House legislation that is necessary to fight terrorism? The threat to the country is from the terrorists, not the police. Listening to some of the speeches tonight, one might wonder who was the threat. To me and the vast majority of people, the terrorists are the threat, the police should have the legislation to deal with them and the Home Secretary has introduced that necessary legislation.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Much of the debate in the House tonight has had an air of unreality which would have astonished our constituents. Had they been present during our deliberations and heard some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Back Benchers and some of the fanciful questions that were raised about what would happen if the police sought to exercise some of the search powers that the Bill provides, they would have been absolutely astonished by the approach of certain Opposition Members.
Of course, on this occasion I exclude those who spoke from the Labour Front Bench. They made responsible speeches in which they supported the legislation. It is a pity that they were not able to carry through what they said by joining us in the Division Lobby and showing that they supported the Government in introducing the legislation not only by their words but by their votes and their deeds.
The Bill is an important measure. It will give the police five important new powers with which to safeguard the public and tackle the threats posed by terrorists. As has been generally agreed, its provisions are sensible and practical. They contain clear and effective safeguards to ensure that they are used carefully and sensibly and only when operationally necessary.
I believe that those powers will make a real difference. It is essential that they are put in place immediately so that they start to make that difference as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Straw: When the Home Secretary asked for our support for the Bill last Thursday and we gave it consideration, we concluded that we should support it on the merits of the case and not on the prospect that he would be able to maintain a conciliatory tone throughout the debates.
The Home Secretary said that we should be judged not only by our words but by our deeds. If he reflects on our deeds in securing the passage of the measure, he will realise that not only our words but our actions in

collaborating with the Government have ensured that the measure has rightly secured a relatively easy passage through the House.
Earlier this evening, we exposed a liberal flank in the Home Secretary. Although he was not a Member of Parliament in 1981, he would have supported the liberal measure to abolish the sus laws and replace them with something altogether softer and more liberal. Reading the Evening Standard just a moment ago in the Tea Room, I discovered that the Home Secretary has been infected with liberalism to an even greater extent. He is now seeking to emulate the distinguished former Liberal Prime Minister of the last century, William Gladstone. I read in the Evening Standard that yesterday Soho sleaze was
laid bare for the Home Secretary".
He apparently spent yesterday evening, no doubt in preparation for today, strolling down the streets of Soho—doubtless seeking to save souls. He said, unusually employing a double negative redolent of the Scott report, that it was an area
I am not totally unfamiliar with".
He went on to add hastily:
I come here to go to the cinema, the theatre or the restaurants",
and added—no doubt before being searched—
I think the police do a very good job.
We are glad to recognise that some forces of liberalism are taking over the Secretary of State, and that, as a result, he has readily accepted the need for safeguards to be written into the operative clause of the measure, clause 1.
We have considered the Bill with great care. We believe that, although the powers are important, they do not raise any major issue of principle. They are squarely based on the powers taken in 1994 in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act; and I remind my hon. Friends that not a single Member of the House voted against clause 62 of that Bill or spoke against it. Labour Front Benchers supported it; we thought it an important addition to the anti-terrorist laws; and we believe that the powers in the Bill, especially clause 1, fill a gap in the legislation that needed filling.
None of this would have been necessary but for the fact that the IRA unilaterally decided to end its ceasefire on 9 February, and subsequently killed and maimed many people and caused millions of pounds-worth of damage to shops and businesses. It is our fervent hope—and that, I believe, of all hon. Members—that the IRA will re-establish its ceasefire and that there will follow a process to secure a permanent peace. But so long as that peace is a more distant prospect than any of us would wish, it is important that these measures reach the statute book. I am glad tonight that by words and deeds we have assisted their progress.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is important, as far as possible, to maintain a bipartisan approach to these issues. If that means that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary gave way to Labour representations when these issues were discussed, that was well worth while. Agreement requires compromise, and if serious points raised in those discussions are reflected in assurances given, or in the Bill itself, the whole House will welcome that.


It is worth remembering that this Bill amends the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and allows the police, and sometimes others, additional powers to prevent and investigate acts of terrorism. The provisions for searching those out of vehicles are merely broader than those in the original Act. The narrower powers in the original legislation to stop pedestrians and to search anything carried by them have been extended now to allow them to be searched, within reason. This wider power has been adjudged necessary. The events in London in February showed the need for it, and I have no doubt that is why the police suggested the change in discussions with the Home Office.
The rest of the Bill is probably not controversial. Clauses 2 to 5 and the schedule have not troubled anyone in the House unduly. What we have not heard yet is whether some of these powers already exist in the Republic of Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) has told me semi-privately—[HON. MEMBERS: "Semi-privately?"] He talked to me just now when I was sitting in front of him. If in these debates we could be told what powers already exist in the Republic, we would sometimes discover that some hon. Members are raising fears that do not amount to fears in the 26 counties of Ireland. The same applies to some of the other countries in Europe. That is a useful context in which to put the Bill and that may reduce the temperature of the debate. It is easy in the House to get involved in great arguments of principle when no issue of principle is involved.
My final point is related to a telephone message I received from someone who chose to be anonymous and who asked why I was speaking for the people of Ireland. Although my Irish links are not as great as some people's, it is possible to repeat what people in Ireland say. They, whether secular or Church, partisan or non-partisan, say that they reject violence. Democracy is about debate, decision and defeat and not always about debate, decision and victory. Democracy is about being willing to abide by the views of the majority whether in Parliament or in the country.
Time and again, people have rejected violence in a country that has one person, one vote. That applies in the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom and that should allow people to follow the agreement made by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach—be that the Downing Street declaration or further agreements—that the nations of these islands will work together for the benefit of the people. That requires giving support to the police services in Ireland and in the United Kingdom. My personal view is that the most important approach is not just police action but what the people do. I make one plea as the Bill moves on to another place: anybody who is concerned to reduce violence should tell Sinn Fein and the IRA, and the paramilitaries on the other side, to end the violence now, because it will not do any good. Crosses on ballot papers matter more than crosses in the cemetery. Democratic countries cannot be expected to give way to violence, because it is not the way forward.

Mr. Benn: This is a thoroughly bad Bill, which has been rushed through with indecent haste, and my hon. Friends who have voted against it will be shown to have been right.
One argument against the Bill has not yet been put—that the Bill will not contribute in any way to the ending of violence in Northern Ireland. I have sat in this place a long time and I have heard Ministers from both parties present Bills. I was in the Cabinet when the troops were sent in, and that was going to solve the problem. Partition was going to solve the problem. Stormont was going to solve the problem. Direct rule was going to solve the problem. Power sharing was going to solve the problem. Diplock courts were going to solve the problem, as were strip searches, supergrass trials, CS gas, and detention without trial. None of the policies pursued by successive British Governments, in line with the sort of speech that we heard tonight, has contributed to peace in Ireland.
The fighting ended, not as a result of anything that came from Ministers but because Albert Reynolds, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and a former Member of the House, Gerry Adams, persuaded the IRA to stop fighting in the hope of getting talks going. That was what ended it. The police measures and the Sinn Fein ban did not bring about what everybody in the House wants—an end to the killing. I will not go further into that question because I am not a believer in scapegoats, but I do not believe that the Government made it possible for that to proceed.
It is worth reminding the House of certain events during the ceasefire. First, the mythology was propagated by some people that there was an attempt to get the north forcibly into the south. Nobody thinks that the Six Counties can be forced into the south. The Republic does not want the Six Counties. Does the House think that the south wants the Ulster Unionists sitting in the Dail? Of course it does not. We are talking about what was set out clearly in the Hume-Adams-Reynolds proposal—that the people of the island of Ireland would resolve their own future.
The second consequence of the ceasefire was that the two communities in the north got together—thank God. The communities have a lot in common, because there are many problems there that have not a sectarian basis but an economic or class basis. That has been an important development.
The third development was the involvement of Dublin. Although I know that some of my hon. Friends and the Ulster Unionists do not like it, the British Government cannot move without Dublin, which now exercises a sort of unofficial condominium with the British Government over the Six Counties. I welcome that.
President Clinton got in on it too. The authority of the British Government, who have always protested that they are the sole authority in Northern Ireland, was eroded because their policies failed, and an initiative came from within Ireland itself to bring about peace. I have long believed that the solution to this problem is to be found in the termination of jurisdiction. I have introduced many Bills, and I believe that that is what will happen.
British Government power cannot be enforced in Northern Ireland. Of course, I fully understand why the Unionists want that. They want the support of British troops when they get into trouble with their nationalist colleagues in the north. That is what the whole thing is about and the Unionists have played a significant part in preventing the talks from being held.
One of the factors that will ultimately persuade the British people—who, if opinion polls mean anything, have been in favour of a British withdrawal for 25 years—


is that our liberties and not just the liberties of the people in the north are going. The Bill touches on our liberties and it will persuade more people in Britain that our liberties and their liberties go side by side and that we must find an answer by talking and not by fighting.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Benn: We are under a terrible guillotine and I do not want to take too much time.

Mr. Maginnis: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Ulster Unionists.

Mr. Benn: I was not alluding to the hon. Gentleman personally. I am trying to make a point, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maginnis: I am not sure whether I should call the right hon. Gentleman Aesop or one of the Brothers Grimm. I have listened to his fairy tales for the past five minutes. He is very entertaining although he is not very realistic. He should consider what happened in London when what was referred to as the ring of steel was placed around the City to prevent terrorist activity. Was not that widely accepted and welcomed and did it not serve a useful purpose? The right hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleagues are nodding.

Mr. Benn: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to the Victoria tower and pulls out the 1641 Act of Charles I for dealing with the rebels in Ireland. [Interruption.] This legislation is of Charles I proportions.
What I am saying may be unpopular but many predictions come true. The House cannot and has no right to govern Northern Ireland. It is not that the south wants to take over the north, but the problem must be resolved within that island. Until we recognise that fact, all the police powers that the Home Secretary can think up—and I have no doubt that given a bit of time he will think up some more—will fail to solve the problem. So far, none of them has achieved the objectives that were in the minds of those who advocated them.

Mr. Beith: The notion that the IRA does not wish to use the bomb to force people to accept what it could not get them to accept politically is plain naive and plain stupid. It has been trying to do that consistently for years and we have had to use all sorts of means to try to prevent it. Trying to change the political context in which the IRA is waging its war is obviously crucial to the whole issue. If police operations had not been mounted against terrorism, more people would have died and more would have been maimed.
It is necessary to have legislation. We may disagree about its precise content, but it has been important to have appropriate measures on the statute book. In that spirit we supported the Bill's Second Reading although we were critical of the procedure by which it was considered. The police were right to seek clarification of their powers and, in some respects, an extension of them. We supported the

proposal that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill because the Committee examined that clause and considered amendments to it. Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5, however, were not discussed in Committee, and nor was the schedule. Most of the Bill has never been examined in Committee. A simple illustration of the problems that we would encounter arose when, along with others, I sought to raise the position in Scotland. No Scottish Office Minister attended the Committee: Scottish Office Ministers must have been told that the intention was not to reach the parts of the Bill relating to Scotland.
There is still the puzzle about who are the civilians who will be allowed to use force in the exercise of functions set out in the Bill. It is difficult to understand what powers we shall unleash if we give untrained civilian staff the right to use force in the context of a Bill such as this. That is one of many details that have never been examined. It does no service to the police or the public to enact legislation in this undigested, unexamined form, relying wholly on a few parliamentary draftsmen and officials in the Home Office and hoping that they got it right in the first place. Past experience suggests that that will not be the case.
We should have examined the Bill properly, but we have not. The Home Secretary cannot expect us to support the Third Reading of a Bill almost all of which has not been examined in Committee.

Mr. Mallon: Only three weeks ago, we spent three hours debating the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act. During that debate, the Home Secretary gave no indication that there had been a request or a demand for additional powers such as these, or that he was thinking in terms of such powers.
One question remains unanswered. Was the Bill drafted after the renewal of the Act, and was whatever information the Home Secretary is privy to available to him before the renewal of the Act? Was the Bill ready and waiting to go, and was it held back—for whatever reason—until the night before Parliament was due to rise for the recess? That is crucial. Until we know the answer, it will be difficult to avoid the suspicion—a reasonable suspicion, in my view—that the way in which the Bill has been presented is a cynical exercise, and that its provisions could have been considered during the renewal of the PTA. It is for the Home Secretary to clarify the matter. In the circumstances in which the Bill has been presented, I think that he owes it to the House to tell us whether the Bill was drafted before the debate on the renewal of the PTA.
I have another question. We have often heard the accusation from some parts of the House that the terrorism at Canary wharf emanated from the Republic of Ireland, that the bombs were assembled there and brought from there and that the bombing resulted from activities in the Republic.

Mr. Maginnis: Yes.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for confirming that. If he is right—the Home Secretary seems to think that he is on most occasions—did the British Government share their intelligence with the Irish Government in relation to the need to present the Bill tonight?


Those two questions require answers. If the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is right and the accusation has been made against the Republic, surely the Home Secretary had a duty to inform the Irish Government of the security danger that existed within the Republic, which—if the hon. Gentleman is right—might stem from the Republic. In the circumstances, the Secretary of State must answer those two questions to avoid the reasonable suspicion that the way in which the Bill has been presented is an act of cynicism.

Mr. Corbyn: The debate is a complete travesty of parliamentary democracy and of the scrutiny of legislation by the House of Commons. It is less than 34 hours since the Home Secretary told the House that he was going to introduce the Bill, since when we have rushed through a very serious Bill without proper consideration, examination or debate. It was only because of the protests made yesterday and this morning by a considerable number of hon. Members that we were able to table and discuss amendments.
The Bill builds on bad legislation known as the prevention of terrorism Act, which has resulted not in the prevention of terrorism but in many Irish people—so far as Great Britain is concerned, they are mainly in London—being stopped, searched, held for up to seven days without access to a solicitor and, in most cases, then released. They have never forgotten the experience. The Bill gives the police powers in designated areas to stop and search people at random and there are apparently no rights for people who are wrongly treated as a result of it.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has pointed out, the House has discussed—in my experience of almost 13 years—dozens of various security measures that were supposed to bring an end to the problem in Ireland. They have not done so. The only solution can and must be political. I would have found it far more credible if the House had instead spent more time debating the need for the development of the peace process, all-party talks, constitutional change to end the Unionist veto in Northern Ireland and long-term peace. We would serve people far better by doing that than by passing legislation that will alienate many people in London and other cities in the country, particularly the young. We ought to be considering the peaceful future that could be attained.
The Bill brings only discredit to the House of Commons. It is an aberration of any democratic process. I hope that the House will reject it, but I recognise that that is very unlikely. I hope that there will be an opportunity in the near future to repeal the Bill, the PTA and all the other illiberal, uncontrollable legislation that has passed through the House.

Mr. Bennett: The main aim of terrorists is to destroy the democratic process, and over the past 12 hours we have played into their hands. We have shown them a travesty of the democratic process. It is appalling that the Government did not take time to ensure that the Bill could be discussed properly. We are told that it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Government to have published the Bill last week when they decided to go

ahead with it. At least then people outside the House would have had a chance a read it, comment on it and suggest amendments via Members of Parliament. But no, the Government chose not even to publish a rough draft until yesterday. The Bill itself was published only today. We just about managed to debate clause 1 in Committee, but failed to debate properly another six clauses and a schedule.
I made it quite clear in the debate on the guillotine motion that if the Government had said that emergency legislation was needed for a week or two, after which the proper democratic process would be observed, they might have been able to justify it. To want to implement permanent legislation in such a way is absolutely appalling. When they behave in such a way, the Government play into the terrorists' hands because they demonstrate that things are unfair and unjust.
I would have liked the opportunity to put one or two questions, especially on parts of the Bill that we did not have the chance to consider in Committee, some of which I would certainly have supported. I would have asked the Secretary of State for some reassurances, especially on the powers to search non-residential buildings. The police should be entitled to search premises such as lock-up garages without having to seek a warrant, but following any search they must ensure that lock-up garages and other premises are left secure so that the owner can return to them. I hope that the Minister will tell us in the short time remaining whether he will give some guarantees that those assurances can be built into the guidance.
The proposed right of police officers to inspect goods at ports seems very sensible, and it is amazing that we have left that to customs officers, but there is a power to detain goods for up to seven days, and some of the goods that can be detained are date-sensitive and perishable. I should have thought that the Secretary of State could have assured us that the guidance will place a duty on the police to ensure that goods held for inspection are released as soon as possible.
Finally, I wish to refer to the banning of cars from particular areas—again, a perfectly sensible proposal. But if we are trying to ban vehicles from areas around public buildings, it may be easy to do that at night when there are no cars around. It is clear that it is intended to use the power in residential areas, and that causes a greater problem. People in many areas are entitled to park outside their homes, but they may not be in a fit state to drive their car away when asked to do so by a police officer. Again, the Secretary of State could have informed us what provisions are proposed to meet such a situation.
Those are the sort of matters on which we should have asked the Government for assurances. Instead, we have had the farce of legislation being rushed through with little or no time for hon. Members to make reasonable points and to ask the Government for guarantees. Such behaviour plays into the hands of the terrorists.

Ms Abbott: I shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill. On behalf of all my colleagues who will also be doing so, I must say how much we resent the cheap argument that anybody who criticises the way in which the Bill has been pushed through, or anybody who criticises any detail of the Bill, is in some sense soft on terrorism or is giving aid and succour to the people who


blow up men, women and children. In my constituency, we could hear the Canary wharf bomb go off, and I resent—as do my colleagues—the implication that in some sense we do not take the matter seriously and are soft on terrorism.
I shall vote against the Bill because the way in which it has been pushed through Parliament shows contempt for our procedures and for the electors whom we are supposed to represent. I shall also vote against the Bill because I cannot accept giving the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search. Those of us who were present in the Chamber for the debates on amendments to clause 1 heard the heartfelt speech of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). He spelt out the consequences of similar legislation in Northern Ireland for the relationship between young people and the police. The Bill will have exactly the same negative repercussions on young people on the mainland as it did in Northern Ireland.
The Home Secretary asked what our constituents would think if they could hear the debate today. If my constituents had heard the debate, they would have thought, "If the legislation is so important, why are the Government so adamant about not giving sufficient time to debate it?" If my constituents—black, white, Asian or whatever their ethnicity—aged under 21 could have heard the debate, they would have understood, as Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends failed to understand, the concerns that I expressed about giving police wide-ranging powers to stop and search. They would have understood that point, and it is a shame that the House did not.
I shall also oppose the legislation because I dislike the cynical motives of the Home Secretary in promoting it. I believe that when the history is written of 20th-century Home Secretaries, the present one will go down for many things. He will go down in history as the agitprop Home Secretary—a Home Secretary who ruthlessly promoted legislation purely for the purpose of making propaganda.
One of my and my colleagues' fundamental objections to the Bill is that we do not believe that it is only in the past 72 hours that the Home Secretary has discovered the need for it. We do not believe that it gives the police powers to do things that they could not already do without let or hindrance. We believe that the Bill has been promoted cynically as a means of propaganda and to allow Conservative Members the chance to paint this party and my Front-Bench colleagues as soft on terrorism.
My hon. Friends and I believe that promoting legislation for those purposes demeans the House and demeans the parliamentary process. I shall be proud to vote against the Bill tonight. I suspect that when people look back, they will believe that those of us who were prepared to vote against the Bill did the right thing.

Mr. Howard: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate on Third Reading has made up in the sharpness of its controversy for the relative absence of controversy in our proceedings hitherto. I was particularly interested in the speech by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which I thought encapsulated his entire political career. He put up an Aunt Sally and then

knocked it down. He suggested that the new powers would not achieve peace in Ireland. Of course that is right; we have never put them forward on that basis.
I have never suggested that the purpose of the powers was to achieve peace in Northern Ireland and an end to the terrorist campaign in Great Britain. I would like to see peace achieved and I would like to see an end to the terrorist campaign—we are pursuing that objective through other means. The purpose of these powers is much more limited. It is to give our constituents the protection that they deserve from terrorist attacks. That is why our constituents have sent us here. If there is one thing that they care about more than anything else, it is the need for protection against terrorist outrages. That is what our constituents want—young as well as old. They would understand the police's need for the additional powers. That is why the powers are necessary, that is why the powers are urgent and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 145, Noes 13.

Division No. 97]
[1.21 am

AYES


Alexander, Richard
Fabricant, Michael


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Ashby, David
French, Douglas


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gallie, Phil


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Garnier, Edward


Bates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Beggs, Roy
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Body, Sir Richard
Gorst, Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Booth, Hartley
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Boswell, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hannam, Sir John


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brandreth, Gyles
Harris, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Burt, Alistair
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Peter
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Carttiss, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coe, Sebastian
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Congdon, David
Key, Robert


Conway, Derek
King, Rt Hon Tom


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Cran, James
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Leigh, Edward


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lidington, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Dover, Den
Luff, Peter


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Dunn, Bob
McCrea, The Reverend William


Elletson, Harold
MacKay, Andrew


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Faber, David
Maginnis, Ken






Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spring, Richard


Moate, Sir Roger
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stephen, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Stern, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Streeter, Gary


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thomason, Roy


Openheim, Phillip
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Page, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Paisley, The Reverend Ian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Waterson, Nigel


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Whittingdale, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Willetts, David


Riddick, Graham
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wood, Timothy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Mr. Simon Burns and


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Mr. Richard Ottaway.




NOES


Barnes, Harry
Mallon, Seamus


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, Andrew F
Sedgemore, Brian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken



McGrady, Eddie
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Madden, Max
Mr. Dennis Canavan.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

A41 (Aston Clinton Bypass)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]

Mr. David Lidington: In a few hours' time my constituents in the village of Aston Clinton will wake up to the rumble of lorries and the roar of cars passing through their small village. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the long wait that those villagers have had for a road improvement first promised them in 1937, and to press on my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads the case for the Aston Clinton bypass to be given the highest possible priority, within what my constituents and I accept is inevitably a finite road budget in any one year.
The A41 at Aston Clinton has always been a major road, right back to Roman times when, as Akeman street, it was one of the highways of Britain. As a trunk road, it now divides the village, with most of the homes and the village school on one side of it, while most of the public amenities—the church, the post office, the village hall, the sports and social club, the recreation ground and the bus stops to the nearest town, Aylesbury—are on the other. The trunk road is continuously fronted by homes, public houses and a school; all are exposed to noise and fumes. Some of the older houses have windows less than 2 yd from the edge of the carriageway. A large number of private driveways and garage paths give access directly on to the trunk road which, as my hon. Friend can imagine, causes problems of additional congestion. About 15 minor roads and lanes join the A41 during its course through the village.
The congestion on the A41 is a long-standing problem and was recognised as such in the report of the inspector who conducted the public inquiry in 1990, who said:
there is already traffic congestion and accidents occur.
The plight of the people of Aston Clinton has been made much worse since the opening of the Berkhamsted and Kings Langley bypasses in 1993. Aston Clinton is now the only village on the A41 without a bypass between Aylesbury and the M25.
Since the opening of the Berkhamsted and Kings Langley bypasses there has been a 19 per cent. increase in average daily traffic flows through Aston Clinton, equivalent to 24,700 vehicles per day according to the most recent figures that I have obtained, and a 20 per cent. rise in peak flows, equivalent to 2,300 vehicles each hour at peak times in each direction.
The proposed bypass scheme has a long history. Back in 1937, the A41 at Aston Clinton was recognised as inadequate and a scheme was proposed to widen the road to three lanes. That was approved by the then Government under the Restriction of Ribbon Development Act 1935, but nothing was done. In 1956, the then Minister of Transport agreed that predicted traffic flows meant that a bypass was needed rather than mere road widening, and Buckinghamshire county council was instructed by the Government to prepare a scheme. Two years later, in 1958, draft orders were published, but they were never confirmed.
No action was taken until the 1970s, when the Department of Transport again investigated routes both north and south of the village; none was developed.


By 1981, the Aston Clinton bypass was included in the reserve list of road schemes in the Government White Paper entitled, "Policy for Roads: England 1981", and the start of works was assumed to be from 1986 onwards—I emphasise that the year was 1986.
In 1982, the Department of Transport asked Buckinghamshire county council to carry out a fresh investigation of alternative routes. In 1987, the then Minister finally announced the preferred route for consultation. The Department then said that according to its programme
construction would start towards the end of 1989.
The Department added:
This may be optimistic. We will do our best.
In May 1988, the Department said that the estimated start date would be early 1990, with completion likely in 1992, at about the same time as the Kings Langley and Berkhamsted bypasses were then expected to be completed.
In the autumn of 1989, draft orders were published and in April and May 1990 a public inquiry was held. The inspector at that inquiry completed his report quickly and dated it 3 July 1990. It was not until 12 months later, on 19 July 1991, that his report and the letter announcing the ministerial decision were published. In a press release dated 22 July 1991, my hon. Friend's predecessor, Mr. Chope, said:
Work on the A41 Aston Clinton bypass in Buckinghamshire could begin as early as next year.
By April 1993, however, the Department was saying that the earliest that work could start would be in 1994–95. By December 1993, that start date had slipped to 1995. In 1993, however, some progress was made when orders were issued. The issue of supplementary orders required a further public inquiry in November 1994 and its report and decision were published in July last year.
Much to the relief of my constituents, the Government's review of their road programme during the latter part of 1995 led to the Aston Clinton bypass being kept within the Government's overall road programme. Indeed, it was singled out for mention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport in his press statement, which accompanied the release of details of the Government's trunk roads programme.
The history of this is important. I want my hon. Friend the Minister to understand why my constituents are impatient and why they have become cynical over the years about reassurances from the Department of Transport that never seem to be translated into action. It is true that part of the delay has been occasioned by genuine objections which needed to be discussed and properly considered.
My constituents in two small villages—Buckland and Drayton Beauchamp—face the loss of tranquillity in their village environments when the Aston Clinton bypass is eventually built. It was right for their objections and counter-proposals to be fully considered. However, some of the residents of the villages are now saying to me that if the bypass has to be built, we should get on with it as quickly as possible. At least then the blight on their homes would be removed and compensation arrangements could begin to be sorted out. Within Aston Clinton the great

majority of people and organisations strongly support the bypass scheme and agree with the inspector's conclusion of 1990 that the need for the bypass is urgent.
All the elected representatives of Aston Clinton have given strong support to the bypass scheme. In particular, County Councillor Bill Chapple, the local ward councillor, has been unstinting in his campaign for the bypass to be built as quickly as possible. He has been supported by the district councillors, Don Evett and Gavin Chapman, by Aston Clinton parish council and by the Aston Clinton Residents Association.
In conclusion, I remind hon. Members of the submission of the Department of Transport to the public inquiry in 1990. The Department said that the bypass represented good value for money, that it would remove about 75 per cent. of the traffic from the A41 through the centre of Aston Clinton and that it would reduce accidents. This is a good and a worthwhile scheme. My constituents have been waiting for it for a long time. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Transport will see their way to giving it the highest possible priority within their programme.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) has been a strong and persistent advocate of the A41 Aston Clinton bypass. I reassure him that there is absolutely no doubt about the importance of the scheme, which is why it remained firmly in the main programme after the thorough review of the programme that I conducted last year.
The section of road between Aylesbury and Tring Hill is the last section of the A41 to be improved to dual carriageway standard between the M25 and Aylesbury. The new bypass will have grade-separated junctions to the north of Aston Clinton from the A41 Tring bypass to a proposed at-grade roundabout on the existing A41 to the west of Aston Clinton—a length of about four miles.
The road in question already suffers from congestion; slow-moving vehicles burn more fuel and create more harmful emissions; Aston Clinton, in particular, suffers from noise and fumes; the congestion reduces the efficiency and reliability of road transport for industry and increases the cost for consumers; local journeys are made more difficult; and even simple errands—such as visiting the shops, getting to work or dropping the children off at school—take more time. With further forecast traffic, the situation will become worse—and we cannot hope that the traffic will disappear.
My hon. Friend has made it abundantly clear—here today, previously in correspondence and many times in the Lobby—that he is increasingly concerned about the volume of traffic on the A41. I am well aware of this. As he said, there have been increases of approximately 19 per cent. and 20 per cent. in the annual average daily traffic flows and peak hour traffic flows on the A41 at Aston Clinton since the opening of the Berkhamstead to Kings Langley bypass.
The relief brought to the village as a result of the bypass will be substantial. We estimate that traffic flows will fall by more than 70 per cent.—which would mean some 14,000 vehicles a day being taken away from people's homes and schools. This will undoubtedly


improve the quality of life for those who live and work in Aston Clinton. Moreover, the bypass is estimated to save more than 500 personal injury accidents and about eight lives over 30 years.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, much of the delay has been in overcoming objections and completing statutory procedures. Some procedures remain to be completed. The public inquiry in November 1994 heard objections to draft supplementary orders implementing modifications to the scheme, which were recommended following the original inquiry in 1990. These modifications, which included measures to minimise the impact of the new road on the environment of St. Mary's church in Drayton Beauchamp, will be the subject of orders that will be made later this summer.
There will follow a six-week period when those orders are open to challenge but, following completion of these statutory procedures, the road will be ready for start of works and the start of works will depend solely on the availability of funding. I cannot give any guarantees of when that will be, but I can reassure my hon. Friend that the scheme will be the nearest to the starting line that it could possibly be and I think that, after hearing what I said about the merits of the scheme, he will understand that nothing would gladden me more than to be able to find the resources, to allocate them to the scheme and to let his constituents have the bypass that they have supported so strongly and for which they have waited so long.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Two o'clock.